Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bahman Tavoosi (2nd nomination)

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahman Tavoosi

Bahman Tavoosi (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)

Semi-advertorialized

conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I fail to see the basis for notability here and it does indeed read very much like self promotion or paid editing. Fails
WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   21:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Please note I have provided links numerous times from different links from different sources not by the artist yet still this article is subject to notability or PAID EDITING. Please read and check sources before such a claim. I spent many hours within the past couple of months to create the article yet you keep repeating the same claim over and over. There are plenty of sources available online from different film festivals to prove the identity of the artist and apparently he won few prizes this year only for his new documentary. Inception 111 (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)inception 111Inception 111 (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A filmmaker does not get an article on the basis of having catalogue entries on the self-published websites of the film festivals where his films have screened — that's directly affiliated
reliable sourcing. A filmmaker's ability to qualify for an article depends on the volume of independent attention that has or hasn't been paid to his films by journalists and film critics in the media. But you've only shown two sources which meet that standard, which is not enough. And a filmmaker is also not handed an automatic notability freebie on the basis of having won just any award at just any minor film festival on the planet — to be notable for winning awards, a filmmaker has to win a major award on the order of an Oscar, a BAFTA, a Canadian Screen Award or the top tier of internationally recognized film festivals like Cannes, Berlin or TIFF. The Tallinn Black Nights Film Festival and the Brussels Independent Film Festival are not internationally prominent enough to secure the notability of a filmmaker all by themselves — if winning their awards is the only notability claim he has, that isn't good enough either. The extent to which any award counts as an article-clinching notability claim is always strictly coterminous with the extent to which media report the granting of that award as news. Awards that get covered by the media confer notability — while awards that do not get covered by the media, and thus have to be sourced to the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself because journalistic coverage about that award presentation is not available to source the statement to, do not. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2020 (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.