Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rishi Bhat (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Given the lack of participation here, this can be renominated at any time. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rishi_Bhat

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is not very notable. They had a supporting role in a minor movie over 20 years ago and sold two companies during the dotcom bubble. The movie information purpose can be equally served by imdb and countless people fulfill the criteria for the business endeavors Mr bzman (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could swear that I considered this previously at a PROD or AFD, but I can not find a history of this. However, this page name suggests that there must have been a precious discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only deletion related action I can see is an edit war between IP editors over a prod (reviewed every revision since creation), which it does not appear you were involved with. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone blanked my talk page Prod commentary. I have restored it. Why was this started as a 2nd nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I am kind of on the fence. His acting critical reception is only for nominations. I don't see any awards. I think his early life stuff may count as WP:ONEEVENT.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A kid who acted in a significant role in a major notable production for which he received recognition by his peers, and who then several years later made his first millions by age 15.[1] He was noteworthy then and we do not expect someone determinable as notable when younger to maintain a high media profile when older. At least two different and unrelated sourcable events some five years apert that found their way into the media mean that this is A) not a WP:BLP1E and B) Notability is not temporary. WP:GNG and WP:N are met. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As significant role in one and only picture is not notable. This information is better served by IMDB. Additionally in the notability guidelines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers), there must be a significant role in multiple productions. The recognition took place in a single nomination. The suggestion for any biography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography) are either an award (which this person has none) or multiple nominations, which this person has only one. This means that the first event was not notable and therefore this article may be a temperory notability or represent the notability of an event (dotcom bubble). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.245.6 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One significant role in one notable producton might otherwise fail WP:ENT, but the spirit of ENT is to recognize that a nomination for a notable award might be indicative of significant coverage for that role, and if such coverage were extremely persistant and enduring, the GNG could trump the SNG. But debating GNG vs SNGs is not the argument here. In concentrating on a nominaton, it is forgotten that WP:ANYBIO is not just about "awards". ANYBIO also addresses "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". We have a kid genius who made millions with his software at age 15, the creation of which was a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Weak on WP:ENT but surpassing WP:GNG for his overal life and career(s). If all he had ever done was one film role, I might have otherwise agreed to a deletion or redirect because the role was singular. However, we do not expect any child actor to remain a child or an actor. Five years after he left it, we have a whole new set of circumstances totally unrelated to acting... the creation of a software program and a website that made this youngster a multi-millionaire at age 15, and thus assured more coverage of this indivudual for other life events to further meet WP:GNG AND WP:CREATIVE AND WP:ANYBIO. In determining someone worthy of note, we do not quibble over the separate elements of an individual's career, or concentrate on what might be lesser elements in an attempt to dismiss the total. We instead look at the whole and provide readers with an inciteful and well sourced article that informs: Who did what and when? How did they do it and why?. What was their motivation and background or training? Properly informing the reader does not mean we simply delete pertinant sourced information from an article that could otherwise aid in a reader's greater understanding of the topic.[2] We instead find a way to better present such information... for the readers.[3] And while we might generally not find one film role enough, there is no doubt it was a significant role that garnered wide attention in multiple reliable sources. We add to that, the coverage five years later for an entirely unrelated set of circumstances to see Bhat has recieved coverage for more than just one thing. This is A) not a WP:BLP1E, and B) the cummulative coverage for his acting and for his entrepreneurship exceed the requisites of WP:GNG. Notable is notable. And by the way... we are not IMDB. We differ from them in that we provide users with sourced information that they do not. Why would IMDB care about something other than his acting?? We can... and do. Notability determined through the totality of one's life coverage is not temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.