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. Sandstein 17:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Sanghani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Presented references are name drops. Nothing of depth. scope_creep^Talk 21:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - run of the mill sales person and film producer. We tend to delete articles about producers. His listing in Variety is in passing and is of the up-and-coming variety, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can see where many of the concerns are coming from. I have amended the reference for the Variety line to one which more directly and substantially addresses the subject; the honor itself also suggests a level of recognition by industry peers, as the recipients are chosen via industry submissions which are then curated by Variety's reporters and critics. Additionally, articles exist for other recent recipients, such as Xavier Gens and Nancy Grant; while it would be fallacy to suggest this warrants an article for every recipient, it may suggest that those named are not always of an "up and coming" variety. It's also arguable that the "Prince of Alexandria" profile in Scene magazine and the first Deadline article cited tend toward being substantial, as opposed to passing or trivial mentions. Taken together, these sources might establish notability. I am also not seeing guidance to suggest that we tend to delete articles about film producers in the common outcomes article. Given the fairly extensive credits of the subject, it's likely that further sources could be added in order to bring the article to its full potential, as well. Stm2193 (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most films that are created now have multiple producers so the producer may not be particularly notable, even though they are attached to a famous film with famous actors. As always secondary sources that are of a sufficient depth of coverage are the standard to prove notability. Here there is a lot of name drops, some minor coverage, a single primary source (an interview) but no real secondary sources of depth. Not a thing.scope_creep^Talk 23:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that, while an executive producer credit can indicate varying degrees of involvement, a producer/produced by credit (such as many of those here) is traditionally understood in the industry to indicate one of the main, actually hands-on producers of a project, which is why they are so coveted and one sees so few of them on a given film.Stm2193 (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The coverage of him is sparse, but he was a writer/director for many items, and a good half of them are blue links. That suggests he may pass WP:NCREATIVE#3 or such. PS. If it was one or two items, I'd agree with the nom, but if he is linked as producer or such to something like ten blue links, that's probably on the keep side of borderline, at least for me. Ping me if you want to convince me otherwise, I am always open to discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Do you fancy looking for some additional evidence. I really don't mind withdrawing it, if you give me an inkling of summat. I don't want him deleted if there is inkling that he is notable. scope_creep^Talk 00:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing anything beyond what is there, as I said, it is just my personal view of what to do in borderline cases - in this one, I think there's enough stuff he had his name in as credits etc. that he probably should have an entry. A weak argument, hence my weak keep vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've not found much either. It is really all in the article and its not sufficient to establish notability. scope_creep^Talk 18:33, 16 October 2019 (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.