This article needs an image (preferably
free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that
non-free content guidelines are properly observed.
Thank you for your work. You closed that Afd as Delete. May I ask you why? The last relist by Liz mentioned no apparent consensus and posterior !votes were 2 Ks and 2 Ds (one asserting the film is a short when it's a feature....; the other considering R as a possible fair outcome); what's more indeed, 2 D !votes considered Redirect to List of Hindi films of that year (a common practice for released films, especially Indian ones, when the page presents multiple sources; and this one received not only coverage of the production but reviews; the film being mentioned in the target page) as a suitable option.
Seraphimblade, if you are willing reopen it, I will change my !vote to keep as I find the arguments by Eluchil404 and voorts that came in after mine compelling enough to flip. @
Mushy Yank either way this goes, I do encourage you to start a discussion at
WT:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force to get broader consensus Film Information is RS and meets "nationally known critic" criteria as it appears it could be quite useful.
S0091 (
talk)
15:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Btw, the reason I stumbled upon it and decided to nominate was because the creator was part of a sock farm that was creating articles to insert sneaky hoax elements to them, see
[1], so when I was going to check the content to clean up any hoax elements left, I thought it looks non-notable anyway so better to nominate it for deletion instead. I still think it's not notable, apart from coverage (which includes mostly PR stuff with apparent incorrect claims), it had a very narrow, local release so failing "widely distributed" part as well, but if someone still wants an article, I would suggest to create it from scratch yourself instead of restoring the one that might have some sneaky hoax elements left (the user was also making copyvio plot copy pastes).
Tehonk (
talk)
03:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Mushy Yank and
S0091, if there's an editor involved who was known to do inaccuracies and copyvios, I think that's a very valid concern. What would the two of you, and
Tehonk, think about moving the article to draft so it could be carefully checked for any issues like that, and then could be assessed for viability once anything like that has been addressed?
SeraphimbladeTalk to me05:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you, all. Draftifying seems like a very good idea in this case, yes, and would allow to addresss any potential issue (and improve the page, obviously). Or feel free to make it a page in my User space if no one agrees on a Draft except you and me. Best, -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)11:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello, @
DareshMohan and
Kailash29792:, pinging you with the hope we can find a 3d review/solid source, so that this can be moved to Main without any problem. I've checked the sources and did not find any "hoax" (see above). There was an apparent copyvio issue in the plot section but I've sort of addressed it (it can be improved). Redirect is still an option but given the discussion above, a standalone page seems to be a real possibility.Best, thanks in advance. -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)13:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Mushy Yank: There are no other reliable reviews. There may have been a review in a newspaper in North India but since it is not online and nobody posted it, we can't further this draft any more.
DareshMohan (
talk)
19:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I don't see any major changes from when this was at AfD in terms of the notability concerns raised by the delete !voters, so I think this would just be speedy deleted under
WP:G4 if it's moved back as is. However, I still maintain that this is notable and should be in the mainspace, but I'm not going to take this to DRV because I think that while the delete !votes were weak, the close was within closer discretion.
voorts (
talk/
contributions)
21:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks. Indeed, there aren't major changes except the plot. Yes, you are right: DRV is another option (if Seraphimblade thinks it's better, of course). Let's wait until other users express their views, maybe? -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)21:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have already explained at AfD why the Film Information review shouldn't be considered reliable. However, if the majority of users believe it should be in the mainspace, I am fine with moving it there. –
DreamRimmer (talk)
09:18, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
With two sections completely unsourced and the poor quality sources of the rest, I do not think that the article will have a serious chance of survival when put in main space. The Bannertalk09:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your input. But..... 2 sections completely unsourced?? Where? Plot and cast DO NOT need sources (or rather the film and its credits are the source, and the same could be said for music, which is the film content). But feel free to remove the music section if you think it's doubtful. (Songs can be partly verified
here, for example) -
My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)10:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Lists in Wikipedia are not meant to be complete and exhaustive of their subject.
This guideline is quite helpful. India produces 1,500-2,000 films every year. We are not supposed to list every one of them in the respective yearly list! The Wikipedia entries for 2021, 2022, and 2023 contain around thirty titles for each year, a clearly sufficient number, almost all of which are notable enough to have their own article here. There is no reason whatsoever to augment the 2022 list with the film of the deleted article. I oppose the film's inclusion to that list and any Redirect to it. There is no need to create bad precedents on account of one non-notable work. -
The Gnome (
talk)
17:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)reply