This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Film. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Film|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Film. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Not yet notable per WP:NFILM, references cited confirm that principal photography hasn't begun yet, so the film may never see the light of day. All I could find online in English and Hindi (कर्माण्य) was WP:NEWSORGINDIA announcements about a teaser (currently CGI and a single actor) and a poster. Prodded once, moved to draft, declined there for notability. Wikishovel (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not meet WP:GNG as no in-depth coverage of the subject has been found from reliable independent sources. The cited sources are mostly unreliable, and the reliable sources only provide passing mentions. Additionally, the article fails to meet WP:NFILM. It could potentially be recreated if multiple reviews from reliable independent sources are published after its release. GrabUp - Talk12:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. WP:TOOSOON and per nom. Sources are poor to unreliable with no significant coverage. Maybe after the release of the film, some sources with reviews and other significant coverage might come forth, and then the page can either be recreated or reedited with sources that meet secondary independent reliability criteria. For now fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator himself had reDrafted it so that Draftification although not procedurally standard seemed pretty consensual among all contributors. This is therefore a (fair) procedural AfD and a consensus seems easy to reach if the creator confirms he agrees to Draftification. @Monhiroe:: what do you say? (Announced release on October, 4) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)15:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
?? I never said to move it during AfD and am rather aware we should wait for a close, mind you; just trying to make sure we can reach consensus as you can see if you read my comment with attention. Please amend your comment, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)16:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those do not qualify as RS per WP:NFSOURCES. "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database." Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator didremovethe sources added.....and I obviously restored them. NOTHING in WP:NFILMS says these sources (whose assessment regarding their significance I contest anyway) cannot BE USED. And to remove so many sources during an AfD (especially when you are the nominator!) is bordering disruption. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)21:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC) (Also indicating that NFILMS indicates that those sources would be "non-RS" (!) when quoting a section about significance, not reliability, is plainly erroneous.[reply]
Only one reliable source, I think. Only other thing I found is a few sentences from Reference & Research book news, which like that publication always does is more about the book's publication and carries no evaluative material on its content. There's also the kultureflash review which I am very uncertain of the reliability of, can't find any indications. If it is reliable I guess that makes two? Can anyone find anything else? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The other usages I can find are either citations, but not significant coverage, of the book or coverage of the actual solid light films (some of which would probably meet WP:GNG!). hinnk (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no secondary sources that provide information about this person; the entire article is based on primary sources and the article itself admits that little is known outside of government copyright documentation. As a result of the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Bill Hansen, he is in the credits as an editor for a variety of television programs and related media that may become Wikipedia articles in the future. Most of all, he has composed music with a variety of notable composers. The other references can likely be found, as requested in the first banner. Starlighsky
Future notability is not a consideration at AfD. And his notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from other composers he may have worked with, or from projects he may have worked on that may (or more likely may not) be notable. What we need is reliable, secondary sources. Can you provide those?? Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In 2024, everyone knows that we don’t have biographies on every single person who ever lived and worked in the movies or on TV. We are not, nor ever been, a directory of everyone in “The Business” like ASCAP or IMDB. I hope everyone understands why we strive to be more reliable. This page has to be deleted because there’s not enough information about the person, other than a bare minimum of what he edited. According to our policy: “Biography articles should only be created for people with some sort of verifiable notability. A good measure of notability is whether someone has been featured in multiple, independent, reliable sources.” Sorry. Bearian (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Filming complete; reliable sources cover production with significant information allowing to build and expand so that the page can be retained and wait for reviews that will come probably around the time of the expected release. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)20:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why does it matter that "filming is complete" - the film is not being released until 2025. WP:NFF is clear: Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. There is nothing notable about the production itself, and the film has not yet been released, so... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!21:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does matter whether filming has started (or, for that matter, is complete) or not, for obvious reasons and for policy-based reasons. As for the rest, I beg to differ. We have reliable media outlets offering significant coverage about cast, plot, production, etc, so I will stand by my Keep. NFF is clear, yes, maybe, and production seems notable enough per the guidelines. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)22:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted to clean up but found a bunch of WP:FAKEREF and unreliable sources. Everything here appears to be a WP:WALLEDGARDEN created by UPE Sock in an attempt to show notability. There are sources about some of the individual networks but as a whole there is nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT which is required to show notability under WP:NCORP. CNMall41 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL. Per nom. Poor to unreliable sources with no significant coverage on the network and its channels and fails to meet organization criterias to pass notability. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify. Too early. The makers are still making announcements about the cast. Film is still at early stage of making and is in pre-production. There is nothing notable yet. RangersRus (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased Indian film. Nothing notable about the production, so it does not meet WP:NFF. I couldn't any sources that give WP:SIGCOV so WP:GNG is also not met. The only sources I could find only give routine coverage based on plot summaries, press releases, quotes from people involved in the film and social media posts. John B123 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: announced release in 12 days, and probably coverage coming with it. So this is either too early (cannot judge yet) or too late (too close to release's date). There is no need to delete or draftify for such a short period of time (which, by the time this discussion is over will be either reduced to 5 days or less than zero, if it is Relisted). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)07:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Film is as yet unreleased. Therefore a black-and-white case of not satisfying WP:NFF: Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Film has not yet been released, the production itself is not notable. QED. Article could have remained in draft space... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!12:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except, given existing coverage about production (cast (including notable actors, as I am sure you know), plot, filming, location, production history etc), it is far from proved that production istelf was not notable, very far.... so basically, no, nothing is demonstrated at all. And this is thus far from being a ”b/w” case. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)14:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Delete !voters should consider changing their !votes to draftify. I don't think deletion is the correct decision for a film that is about to be released and will likely be notable after its release. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae and Hey man im josh: Normally I'd agree with you, but in this case the creator is convinced that the article, as is, easily meets WP:NFF and WP:GNG, will not discuss notability with other editors and has already reverted a draftification. I can see the article being moved back to mainspace without any significant changes almost immediately if draftify is the outcome. --John B123 (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there are insufficient keep !votes, perhaps the closer can close this as "The result was draftify, and the article is not to be moved back to mainspace until the movie is released in theatres." –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: A movie being released doesn't make it notable. It still needs to meet GNG or the provisions of WP:NFO, the most usual one being The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. I would suggest adding and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics to the end of your proposed closing. --John B123 (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@John B123: None of that sounds like a good reason to delete the article instead of moving to draft space. WP:DRAFTOBJECT exists and the creator was pushed by myself and another admin to revert a draftification if they truly believed it to be inappropriate. An AfD result changes things, it makes it so that the reasons that the AfD was closed as draftify need to be addressed before moving an article to main space. Let's not try to solve a theoretical future move war by deleting content that could prove useful in the coming months, request page protection or make a report in that case if necessary. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: I agree draftspace is the best place for this article until if/when it meets the notability requirements. Adding move protection to a draftify outcome would go a long way to ensuring it stayed there until moving to mainspace was appropriate. John B123 (talk) 20:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We kinda do, though. Draftifying was the correct course of action, and I would have been happy for it to be worked on there and moved to mainspace, post release, if it satisfied WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV, but instead the draft was moved straight back to mainspace without any improvements. Mushy Yank doesn't accept what WP:NFF says, nor does C1K98V, who below is saying "improvement shall take place in the mainspace." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!11:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank doesn't accept what WP:NFF says, nor does C1K98V is both inappropriate and not true. AS I'VE CLEARLY explained, I think it does MEET NFF, and SO DOES C1K98V, that is very very clearly stated in their !vote; so please refrain from making this kind of fallacious comments. You have your opinion, ours differ from yours, obviously. You may be right and us, wrong, but even if that was the case, that does not allow you to resort to personal attacks to make your point. Or just go to ANI and report us. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)12:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:NFF. The film was announced and filmed during the COVID-19 period. The filming was also delayed/halted due to the pandemic. There is a specific category to list down impacted films. So I'm opposed to deletion, dratify and redirect the article. The changes and improvement shall take place in the mainspace itself. Thanks C1K98V(💬✒️📂)02:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable enough to warrant its own article, and there is pretty much nothing more to add about the person. The person and the reference in this article is already mentioned in the history section of Atari SA and that's all we need. Sceeegt (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, after some research, I'm just finding out that 160 episodes were filmed with the actor "Swapnil Joshi" but then they were deleted and refilmed from episode 73, Tilak has also wiped some articles too just because they contained some footage. and while deleted by some user, It also did air on ZEE TV, it has many indecisive things, for exmaple some sources say it aired from '93 to '96 while others say it's aired from '93 to '96 but later shifted to DD1, some other say that it was aired in '99 on ZEE TV for the first time and some that it aired on DD2-Metro and shifted to ZEETV and/or DD, It's very hard to find truthful sources, as all talk about the same thing but say it differently. for say the example mentioned above. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two mentions that verify it exists is hardly enough to establish notability. If that were the case, pretty much every television show would be notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All articles talk about the same thing, just their matter is different, even with some or for say a lot of digging can be done but it results to the repetitive articles. Though for me deletion is not okay. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page has been up since 2009, and by now we all realize after quite some digging that no reliable sources with indepth significant coverage is to be found. Redirect is better than to keep. Right? RangersRus (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth entertaining a discussion when the first reference you supplied falls squarely under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Won't waste time looking at the rest as it seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes a reliable source. A redirect is acceptable as we can verify it exists, but nothing that shows it is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I think, you're actually right. I think deletion would be ok, as there's no adequate source to find" - This is written as if you are. At least, it does agree there is no adequate sourcing so without it I am wondering your policy-based reasoning for keeping it. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about cast, I just corrected some errors, and if you're talking about the above para, It's common knowledge to know DD didn't stream it in '97 and hence it was handed to ZEE TV, and Sony & Star did stream it following 2001. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common knowledge? I certainly didn't know about it. In Wikipedia we are allowed to state the obvious (e.g., the sky is blue), but what you added would be WP:OR at best. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure your assessment is completely correct. Taking just one example, source 5 offers very significant coverage beside an interview, in a bylined article in a very reliable newspaper. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)07:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sourve 5 says "Krishna made Swapnil Joshi a star overnight; co-director Moti Sagar talks about the TV show." This source is not independent of the claim by the makers themselves. Source needs to be completely secondary independent. RangersRus (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot make it any more clearer than what the journalist himself said on the top of his article about the maker talking about the show and anything that journalist wrote in that article is the outcome of the interview. It is not an indepedent source at all. I am leaving at that. RangersRus (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following parts can be attributed Kavita Awaasthi, journalist for The Hindustan Times, based on her interview with Sagar; the media outlet being considered generally reliable, they can be used to verify a number of facts that contribute to the notability of the program, such as, at least:
After making the successful TV show Ramayan, producer Ramanand Sagar wanted to tap into another epic show — the Bhagavat Puran. Produced by Ramanand, Subhash Sagar and Prem Sagar, and directed by Ramanand, Anand Sagar and Moti Sagar, Shri Krishna was one of the biggest grossers for Doordarshan during the seven years it was on air. The national broadcaster had a limit on the number of episodes it could air in the ’80s, but the ’90s brought about a change in these rules. A producer could now make a show for a longer duration.
Music composer Ravindra Jain composed the music for this serial. The title song, ‘Shree Krishna Govind Hare Murari’, became popular in India and abroad. The show ran for more than seven years, and had over 200 episodes. The show covered Krishna’s life, from his birth to the time of his grandchildren.
The show was shot in Gujarat’s Umbergaon and Vadodara, where they put up huge sets.
Swapnil had a huge fan following because of the show. People thought he was Krishna.
This, in my opinion, in a 2016 article about a 1993 program, can be given a certain credit and at least contributes to the apparent notability of the show (that had, as I am sure you have noticed, 221 episodes and originally aired during 6 years.....) and I think that the material, if the page was redirected, would be lost, which would be detrimental to the encyclopaedia. (And that's just one source). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)16:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
omg finally for goodness' sake someone mentions this, I'm not trying to be rude but why can't someone just read the sources and watch the show for 2 whole minutes to get some fruit out of it. GOD! (replied to mushy yank)Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting for additional and more thorough source analysis. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I would tend to think that a 1962 film with notable cast, notable director, notable musicians is notable for historical reasons but if the various results of GBooks (added one) search are not judged sufficient, please redirect to the director's filmography. VERY opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)18:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary independent reliable sources with indepth coverage on the film. One source on the page that claims to be a review is just a Google snippet and is not review. Page fails WP:NFILM, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. I am not opposed to redirect to director's filmography. RangersRus (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear more opinions on whether or not this subject meets WP:NFILM. Also, since a Redirect was brought up, please supply a link to the suggested target article. Thank you. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's difficult to find sources for something that appeared in 1962 and didn't endure. There was a TV show with the same name which seems to be quite popular and that is what pops up in searches. I did find that a CD had be made of the music but that's all. Lamona (talk) 03:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously-unreferenced article about a Romanian actor, journalist, writer and university lecturer. I have added three references, but all are mentions of his name only. According to the article in the Romanian Wikipedia (also unreferenced), he has written 29 articles, but I can't find reviews of them. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NJOURNALIST, etc. Tacyarg (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After consideration and researching the article myself, I can not find signifigant coverage of Rosemary's Baby as a franchise with a any serious depth. Despite the large amount of citations found in the lead and the amount of content within the article. MOS:FILMSERIES says series and franchise articles would "benefit from coverage that discusses the series as a whole", but we have only been pulling from individual film/tv/work reception and are lacking in material that discusses the entirety of the work. This is predominantly material repeating information already available on the unique film/TV/novel articles.
Two articles are primarily about the 50th anniversary of the first film. There is little discussion of it as a series or a franchise outside other briefs about the development of the film.
Woman's World has little discussion other than a sequel was made to the film, a follow-up was made to the first book, and a television series was adapted. But there is no real discussion of the franchise from a critical, analytical, or business matter. The articles does not refer to it as a franchise, series, or anything.
Mental Floss Similarly, is a list of 13 facts about the first film, some tangentially related to the other material related to either the film or novel.
Articles that praise the first film, and the announcement of a sequel/prequel/remake.
Collider and The Guardian articles primarily praise the first film, and announce a follow up is being developed. There is little discussion about the whole thing as a series/franchise, while boasting the quality of the first film.
Screencrush is probably the closest in detail to anything, but barely traces it mentioning the tv sequel and a miniseries version. No critical analysis, no history of the film's production as a series or franchise with just a brief mention of the cast returning or not returning for 1970s tv-entry.
Sources that call it a franchise fail WP:SIGCOV, as they are trivial mentions, that fail to "address the topic directly and in detail."
Comicbook.com states "The movie successfully launched a titular franchise, which includes a 1976 made-for-TV sequel, an upcoming streaming exclusive prequel (2024), and a television series adaptation." this is the only amount of depth applied and like the Guardian and Collider sources, are presented as press releases for sequels to give them prestige, there is no context to it as a series.
The rest of the article generally rehashes the history of the production of individual items. occasionally peppering in that Rosemary's Baby has been called the greatest [horror] film ever a few times and regurgitates material that is already available in the individual articles for the books, series and novels, and places them side by side with no commentary to why we are comparing them. This goes against WP:UNDUE as we have a lack of "depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. In articles relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." In this case, we have barely anything discussing it as a franchise and run with content that is just discussing one film or another and places no information on why we have to know this info or how it relates to each or if it was even important to this group of works. The same goes for the film gross, which lists the first film's gross, then restates it as a "Total" for the series and has no information on how much the novels or TV series, in terms of cost, production or anything. This is just regurgitating information from the first article.
Beyond this, the article presents original research such as an "Official Franchise Logo". At the same time, the logo in question on [on Wikimedia] refers to it as just the films logo, not a series or franchise. From my search, I've only seen it used for the TV adaptation and the original.
On searching books, websites, and the Wikipedia Library, I have found tons of content discussing the novel and first book, but nothing outside spare mentions like the above. I propose that the article be deleted or merged with a legacy section on the first novel and first film respectively for their respective content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not every apparent franchise or film series needs to have its own article, and all of this information is just a compiled WP:CONTENTFORK of the individual articles which can easily be accessed by the appropriate lead mentions, categories, and navbox template for this material. Because this "franchise" lacks significant coverage from reliable sources (and the WP:RECENT upcoming prequel series not really adding much else in addition to a TV movie, 1 feature film, and the 2 novels), there is really nothing this article can add that is not already adequately covered by the corresponding articles themselves. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADIRECTORY. As for the set index idea, I would suggest to WP:Blow it up and start over for that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm breaking rules, present it. I've made my points here and if you address them directly, we can probably work it out. Not sure what you want and it specifically asks to not makes comments like this during these discussions. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. I'm surprised to have so many participants in this AFD given one of the longest deletion nomination statements I've come across. Glad it didn't discourage editors from voicing their arguments. I'm not chiding the nominator, it's just an observation. I see a lot of "Fails WP:GNG" or "Notability issues" deletion rationales so the fuller explanation is appreciated. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The problem appears to be with WP:CORPDEPTH in particular, since there was only trivial coverage in virtually every source I found. The sources already in the article are IMDB or trivial announcements such as a business agreement or the opening of a studio. Tagged for notability since 2011. Fathoms Below(talk)19:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NFILM. The film was moved to draft but recreated by another IP (likely the same person -- since it ia low budget film, WP:COI?)
The reason it was moved to draft is that all sources relate to Akash Puri releasing the film's trailer. This article shouldn't exist because the entire article is banking on the effect of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Marketing.
This source shows Akash Puri being given flowers beforing watching the film's trailer on a laptop [1]. How is any of this notable?
Regarding Bru Times, the source is obviously unreliable and a compilation of many sources. Although you may think it is a review, it says Upon its release, "Kaalam Raasina Kathalu" received critical acclaim for its storytelling, direction, and performances. Critics praised the film for its nuanced portrayal of complex human emotions and the depth of its characters.
Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. No reception or reviews. Sources are poor and mostly on the release event and one source by Bru Times is clearly unreliable that says it is a people's platform where anyone is free to write news and become a jounalist. There is no significant coverage and reviews in reliable independent secondary source. RangersRus (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out my vote/comment based on the analysis by other editors who have more knowlege about the history of the film and the latest sources presented by S0091. Ednabrenze (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi,
Keep kindly understand that 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' was 1st film to be made in local chhattisgarhi language in over 30 yrs. so no one believed in this movie to have successful run, as such there was virtually any coverage. but after its release thanks to word of mouth publicity the film became a blockbuster leaving behind 'Mohabatein' and 'Mission Kashmir' in the state. Today this film has acquired a cult status as it gave birth to Chhollywood, an entirely new film industry in the state. Remember 'Andaz Apna Apna' despite huge star cast the film was declared massive flop but today it has gained a cult status. As such wiki page on 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' too deserves a page in wikipedia. Whatever sources that have been added are the only sources available online besides youtube (which is not accepted here). Most importanly this page is the most complete and well prepared page on this movie unlike previous attempts. As such 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' wikipedia page should be kept. If anyone can help improve it they are welcome. Bonadart (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi, Ednabrenze kindly understand that 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' was 1st film to be made in local chhattisgarhi language in over 30 yrs. so no one believed in this movie to have successful run, as such there was virtually any coverage. but after its release thanks to word of mouth publicity the film became a blockbuster leaving behind 'Mohabatein' and 'Mission Kashmir' in the state. Today this film has acquired a cult status as it gave birth to Chhollywood, an entirely new film industry in the state. Note that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find mention. Remember 'Andaz Apna Apna', a wiki page on 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' too deserves a page in wikipedia. youtube has lot of info, but not accepted here. Most importantly this page is the most complete and well prepared page on this movie unlike previous attempts. If anyone can help improve it they are welcome. Bonadart (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the analysis but keeping an article here solely depends on the number of reliable sources that could be used to verify claims made in the article. I am not from that state and I would not know the historical background of the film but if there had been enough RS sources I would not have supported deletion. Ednabrenze (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
solely depends on the number of reliable sources, yes and no, it also depends on what they say and if one reliable source proves the film is important in the local culture that can be considered a sufficient reason to keep the page. At least, that is my understanding. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)08:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one source by Rediff that has some coverage and all other sources are poor and unreliable with director's recognition and announcement on the news of the sequel. I would also opt for Redirect but I am not sure where to redirect this page to. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RangersRus kindly understand that 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' was 1st film to be made in local chhattisgarhi language in over 30 yrs. so no one believed in this movie to have successful run, as such there was virtually any coverage. but after its release thanks to word of mouth publicity the film became a blockbuster beating 'Mohabatein' and 'Mission Kashmir' released same day in the state. Today this film has acquired a cult status as it single handly gave birth to Chhollywood, an entirely new film industry in the state (very few films can be credited for that anywhere in india), just this is strong reason to keep the page i think. Remember 'Andaz Apna Apna' despite huge star cast the film was declared massive flop but today it has gained a cult status. As such page on 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' too deserves a page in wikipedia. Whatever sources that have been added are the only sources available online besides youtube (not accepted here). Most importanly this page is the most complete and well prepared page on this movie unlike previous attempts. As such 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' wikipedia page should be kept. Bonadart (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need reliable secondary independent sources with significant coverage to consider the page's notability and so far I have found nothing significant. Its important that we follow the wikipedia guidelines for notability. RangersRus (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since I am from Chhattisgarh I know how important this film is in reviving Chhattisgarhi film industry after 30 years. This film gave us a great director Satish Jain who has previously been a writer of big Hindi films and actor Anuj Sharma who is a Padmashri award winner and MLA and gave many great actors and this film has also been dubbed and remade in other languages. Before creating this article I originally tried to create it from a draft article but the draft kept getting rejected. This article is an important part of the history of Chhattisgarhi culture. I know there are not too many reliable sources on the internet but this film is remembered by the people of Chhattisgarh. Tushar(talk)18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Keep !voters are arguing that the film is very important, but are there any sources we can use for this? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i will again say it, bcoz kindly understand that 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' was 1st film to be made in local chhattisgarhi language in over 30 yrs. This film single-handedly gave birth to a new film industry in the state, all actors made debut with this film. Note that no one believed in this movie to have successful run when it was being made, as such there was virtually any coverage. till this date the local media rarely follows the Chhollywood. This despitre fact that films made here are of better quality and value than bhojpuri films known for crass dialogues and provocative song/dance (as per me). Its history that after its release thanks to word of mouth publicity the film became a blockbuster leaving behind 'Mohabatein' and 'Mission Kashmir' in the state. As such with no media coverage Chhollywood doesnt get mention in media, despite that people love these films. Today this film has acquired a cult status. Remember 'Andaz Apna Apna' despite huge star cast the film was declared massive flop but today it has gained a cult status. As such wiki page on 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' too deserves a place in wikipedia. Whatever sources that have been added are the only sources available online besides youtube (which is not accepted here). Most importantly this page is the most complete and well prepared page on this movie unlike previous attempts. As such 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya' wikipedia page should be kept. If anyone can help improve it they are welcome.
You were told before by another user to not vote twice and yet you did it again and repeated the same wall of texts. Please remove the second vote. RangersRus (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a review by Komal Nahta in rediff source but some coverage with interview of the filmmaker. I already said about this in my vote and all other sources are poor and unreliable. RangersRus (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on what you want to do of it. If you say you already mentioned "this" and I mention the name of the critic and you don't, no, it is not and it is therefore inaccurate to say you "already said about this". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)13:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The story behind the making and release of Mor Chhainha Bhuinya, which has celebrated a 100 day run in Chhattisgarh, is such dramatic fare that it could easily pass off as a good subject for a hit film! Satish Jain, its writer-producer-director, is not new to the Hindi film world.
The worst came when Govinda and director Manoj Agarwal found his Hadh Kar Di Aapne screenplay unsuitable and replaced him, keeping only his story. Dejected, Satish returned to his hometown, Raipur in Chhattisgarh, with the subject for a Chhattisgarhi film in his mind, a little money in his pocket and a lot of tension.Making a Chhattisgarhi film was not easy, especially because until then, only two films had been produced in that dialect.Besides, there was no finance available for the film.
The film was mainly shot in Bhilai, besides other places. Once the film's shooting was completed, Satish thought his woes were over.But it had only just begun. No distributor was ready to touch the film. Depressed, but not daunted, Satish and his brother decided to distribute the film themselves.Without any knowledge of distribution, this was only the beginning of a further harrowing experience for the Jain brothers.Exhibitors were anything but co-operative. Some of those scoffed at the idea of screening a Chhattisgarhi film. But Satish and his brother used all their persuasive powers and released the film in Raipur, Durg and Bilaspur on Diwali (October 27).The rest, as they say, is history...The film, which opened with 3 prints, has 12 prints engaged today, 100 days later. The film completed a hundred day run on February 3 in Raipur, Durg and Bilaspur. Of these, cinemas in Raipur and Bilaspur had five shows daily -- an unprecedented record! In Durg too, the film was screened five shows daily for several weeks before it was brought down to four shows.The blockbuster, which cost less than Rs 15 lakhs to make, is expected to do a business of over Rs 2 crores. It is now heading for a hundred day run at Bhilai, Rajnandgaon, Korba, Dhamtari, Ambikapur and Shakti.At Rajim, which has a population of 25,000 and only two cinemas, the film is being screened at both cinemas! State transport buses are doing such brisk business, carrying loads of people to and fro the cinemas screening the hit that new bus-stops have sprung up outside such cinemas at Rajim and other smaller centres.In fact, people not only come in busloads, but in bullock carts and tractors too! So cinemas halls now display sign boards indicating parking space for the tractors and carts!In Bhilai, a British lady, running an institute where she teaches students to make video and documentary films, saw the film 70 times! She was so impressed by the film's message that the education system is not suitable for preparing the youth for jobs, that she even telephoned Satish to congratulate him. The film is about a family returning to their village after facing tough times in the impersonal city where they had gone with hope and dreams.The film's success means that about 25 Chhattisgarhi projects are in various stages of planning and production. Of these, five are in advanced stages of production or post-production.(...)But the film's collections picked up from the third day, and the collections have been rising since.The film, which looked too insignificant to merit a mention in front of the other two Diwali releases -- Mohabbatein and Mission Kashmir -- soon left the Bollywood flicks far behind in Chhattisgarh.Satish now plans to add a song to the film. This song, which already appears on the film's audio cassette, has the names of all the railway stations in Chhattisgarh and may well lure audiences all over again!The song is scheduled to be shot this month and will be included in all the prints from March. Satish is also contemplating dubbing the film in Bhojpuri.
But you omitted the claims/interview of the filmmaker from the same source that it uses for coverage and like I said earlier, it makes the article not indepedent of the claims made by the filmmaker. In the same source, the filmmaker says
Recalls Satish, "We sold our family land at Rana Pratappur, near Bastar. My brother-in-law also mortgaged his land, while my brother borrowed money from his friends. But we still ran short of money. So my father literally begged for funds, knocking door-to-door in our village. My entire family supported me in my time of need. "If the film has a running time of only one hour 50 minutes, it is because we decided to do away with the shooting of 20 scenes and a song as we had no money left."..."The film had a very slow start. In fact, for the first two days, I felt it wouldn't work. The worst fears overtook me. I would not have had the courage to face my family after what they had done for me. I thought I may have to run away..." Satish recalls.
This is the only source like i said couple of times before that we can consider some coverage but it is not independent of the filmmaker himself and per notability we need 2 or more secondary independent reliable source with indepth coverage and that can not be found on the page. RangersRus (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't OMIT it!!!! I left it out of the quotation on purpose, to cite only what can be attributed to the critic. Your quoting it here is almost bizarre....We needed a reliable source showing the cultural significance of the film. Here you are. I'm leaving it at that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)14:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi Mushy Yank (talk) thanks for this detailed response. I have tried to reason that its unfortunate that local media doesnt focus much on Chhollywood unlike telugu, tamil, bhojpuri, bangla, kannada, or malyalam movies. But some want to ignore the cultural significance and importance of the film that gave birth to an entirely new film industry. Hope this clarifies their doubts, once n for all. Bonadart (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this source ([3] - not sure about reliability) that says that this film revived the industry after 30 years and that the Indian state of Chhattisgarh was created 3 days after the release of this film. That in of itself sounds very significant. The Hindi name is मोर छैंहा भुइंया. DareshMohan (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DareshMohan: that source is unreliable personal BLOG of a user and with Gmail contact and says that it does not make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of information. I saw this source before when trying to find a secondary independent reliable source but because of its unreliability, ignored it. RangersRus (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source comes from a blog that was only created this year. A WHOIS search shows it is about eight months old. That with other factors show it is absolutely unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only source which could possibly be used to support notability would be this from Rediff.com. Although that is up for debate above. Assuming it is acceptable, that only leaves one reliable source that has significant coverage. I do understand the desire to want to keep this, but the sources simply do not support notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi the local media doesnt follow or profile the Chhollywood as such media coverage isnt there except youtube (not accepted here) its neither the film or industry's fault. the significance is huge for giving birth to san industry. Raja Harishchandra and Alam Ara 2 important films, practically none review and virtually no coverage most mentions are books yet they have pages here, so why not this film Bonadart (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the fourth time you have stated such. It does not help your case as it is actually admitting that there is no significant coverage. The sources is what shows notability. Without them, the topic is not notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found a TOI article used in Chhattisgarhi cinema published in 2010 and coverage in this book published in 2019, both a decade of more after this film's release, about the history of Chhattisgarhi cinema which talks about the significance of the film. The TOI article is not a promo piece like we often see in TOI. Between these and Rediff, I believe the film meets WP:GNG and demonstrates the historical significance of the film. S0091 (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the TOI article is reliable as it is NOT part of the run of the mill NEWSORGINDIA they have put out lately. However, unless I am missing something, it is a simply mention of the film which only verifies it existed. Verification is not notability. The book is a little better but again, very little information other than verifying it was made and what it grossed. I think these get it closer but still not over the mark. Maybe a redirect to the cinema page with a mention would be appropriate. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully @CNMall41, you and I have a different definition of a "mention". This book I also found is what I consider to be a mention that only privides verification (a Chhattisgarhi language film titled Mor Chhainha Bhuinya was released in 2000). Of course you can argue TOI is not WP:SIGCOV because we don't have a firm definition of what constitutes SIGCOV, other than it's more than a sentence, but it is certainly more than a mention (non-trivial). It is eight sentences and 139 words (not counting the quote). The article also states The movie's stunning success propelled the rise of Chhattisgarhi film industry. (not included in Daresh's snip below). According Chhattisgarhi language, there are 16.25 million speakers of the language and this is the film that launched an entire industry representing those millions of people. That's not mere existence. S0091 (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Passing mention? TOI says
Then in 2000, Jain returned to Raipur after parting ways with Govinda and decided to make a Chhattisgarhi film Mor Chhaihan Bhuinya (My shadow and earth). Soon enough, he realized he had to produce, direct and finance the movie himself because nobody thought a Chhattisgarhi movie would work. "We had to sell off our family land near Bastar. My brother-in-law mortgaged his land. My brother Tiku sang a few songs because we couldn't afford a playback singer," he remembers. No one else was willing, so the Jains distributed the movie themselves. Mor Chhaihan Bhuinya was released on October 27, 2000. Three days later, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced the creation of Chhattisgarh state. The crowds expressed their happiness by thronging the theatres. Produced at just Rs 20 lakh, the film grossed an eye-popping Rs 2.5 crore. It ran for 27 weeks in Raipur's Babulal theatre. In the two cinema halls of Razim and Nawapara qasbah, it ran 24x7.
I think we do. I would agree that the TOI is reliable, especially since it is bylined. The book is also good coverage but it is more about the filmmaker. Why I said passing mention is because it is more about the history of cinema and includes that as an example. It doesn't say anything about the film other than it was created. Genre? Review? I think agreeing to disagree is appropriate but still do not see this as enough for notability. Based on it being discussed in association with the history of cimena, it may be appropriate to include a snippet there as I sated above. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we disagree. There is no guideline that requires the genre or reviews. While reviews are one of the criteria for WP:NFILM so is #2 (historical significance) which includes Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. We'll agree another time though as we have several times before. S0091 (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find any mention except youtube, which is not accepted here. But it doesnt dampen people's interest in Chhattisgarhi film. Note Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 is the biggest and highest grossing film in last few years in Chhollywood and its theatrical run was longer than Kalki 2898. Also the 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2' wikipage is well structured and complete page created using whatever sources available. Also note it is an important film in Chhollywood that has been a trend setter for sequals. If anyone can help improve it they are welcome. Bonadart (talk) 07:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sources are poor and unreliable on this page. The poor sources have just passing mention and interview on the film by the director. Others are unreliable sources like Instagram, imdb, sacnilk, personal blog like jayjohar.com. No significant coverage and no reception and reviews in independent secondary sources. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 16:51, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RangersRus please mote that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood films, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find any mention except youtube, (not accepted here). But it doesnt dampen people's interest in Chhattisgarhi film. Note Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 is the biggest and highest grossing film in Chhollywood in last few years/ Its theatrical run was longer than Kalki 2898 and did better business than Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha. Also the 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2' wikipage is well structured and complete page created using whatever sources available. Also note it is an important film in Chhollywood that has been a trend setter for sequels. these are reason enough to keep their page in wikipedia. Bonadart (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can not go with word of mouth. We need reliable secondary independent sources with significant coverage to consider the page's notability and so far I have found nothing significant. Its important that we follow the wikipedia guidelines for notability. RangersRus (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find any mention but in youtube, there is lot of info but it is not accepted here. Bonadart (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube channels that are the official channels of reliable sources such as newspapers or major magazines are acceptable. Do any of them meet that standard ? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources are poor to unreliable. First 3 youtube are music channels and looks like link to music videos, after that the 2 are self published youtube channels. Then 6 is again music channel and 7 too but looks self published and all the remaining clearly look like uploaded content by a unverified official accounts. Even the last source by Vistaar News has not significant coverage. There is no "lot of information" in any of the sources setting aside the problem with their reliability. RangersRus (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi you may consider them not reliable but lthese are the top search results, btw if reliability is bar then you have lot of reliable info on Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha but what has happened to the film, its super flop compare it to this movie - 1st sequel, longer run than kalki 2898, biggest hit in last 5 yrs, these are reason enough as per me to keep the page Bonadart (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand what you are saying. I do not know what Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha and kalki 2898 films have to do with the YouTube videos you showed that you found in top search and yet no significant coverage in any of them. We do not want to see youtube videos with stars and interviewer mingling and having fun but need a reliable source from verifiable official account that has significant coverage. If these above were your top searches, it is clear there is not much to go with. RangersRus (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sufficient sources mentioned for notability, A search found coverage of this films in many other languages News Sites. Monophile (talk) 8:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Note that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find any mention in print media except youtube, which is not accepted here. But it doesnt mean people dont like these movies, infact despite that people's interest in Chhattisgarhi film has grown. Note Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 is the biggest and highest grossing film in last few years in Chhollywood. Its theatrical run was longer than Kalki 2898 and made more monwy than Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha. Also the 'Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2' wikipage is well structured and complete page created using whatever sources available. Also note it is an important film in Chhollywood that has been a trend setter for sequals being the 1st such film. All these are reasomn enough for Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 to have a page in wikipedia. If anyone can help improve it they are welcome.
You were told before by another user to not vote twice and yet you did it again and repeated the same wall of texts. Please remove the second vote. RangersRus (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bonadart, it's important to remember that a subject can be popular, even very popular, and some people can think it's "important". But Wikipedia only judges articles based on notability as established by reliable secondary sources. If the sources don't exist, then, for now, there shouldn't be an article. It's not a critique of the subject, just whether or not it meets Wikipedia's standards which are unique to this project and often do not make sense to readers or infrequent editors. But, they are the basis for decision-making in AFDs. LizRead!Talk!06:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi Read!|Liz|Read! (Read!|talk) you said unique!!! well this film Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 is a remake or spiritual sequal to Mor Chhainha Bhuinya, a film that gave birth to an entire film industry in a state, not just that, also it gave chance to all actors to make debut, was such a blockbuster that it pushed other established Bollywood films behind. As for the remake Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 2 in 2024, note that it is the biggest film in last 5 yrs, made the max. money at BO, had a longer theatrical run than Kalki 2898, did better business than a big film like Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha, and is the trendsetter for sequels in Chhollywood; are these not reason enough to make it unique and derserving a page in wikipedia. As for sources I have repeatedly said local media rarely profiiles Chhollywood movies but a lot of info is available in YouTube, which is not accepted here. It's not a film/ film industry fault if it is not profiled in local media. So I strongly believe this movie deserves a place in Wikipedia, and also its well-structured and well made page. Also, the film is such a big success that another sequel, Mor Chhainha Bhuinya 3 is set to release next year.Bonadart (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi RangersRus (talk) what good has notability done to Thugs of Hindustan or Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha both are blockbuster flops. Where as this film is 1st remake, has longer theatrical run than biggest film, done better business in a state than biggest flops nationwide business, and is trensetter for sequels. These are enough reasons to keep this page, different matter that i have seen many pages without any source. Also the local media rarely profiles any Chhollywood film, so its not the film or industry's fault. I rest my case. Bonadart (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also continue to bring up things that fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is best to stick to the reasoning THIS page should be kept without comparing it to others. Specifically, cite the reliable sources that show how this meets notability guidelines (outside of YouTube which you have already provided - all of which cannot be used to establish notability). --CNMall41 (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reviewing this and the original (also up for deletion), the sources simply do not support notability. On its face, it may seem notable but sourcing must support. Even creator says "Note that local media doesnt focus on Chhollywood, as such chhattisgarhi language films barely find any mention except youtube" which sums it up. YouTube is not reliable and the media has not written about it significantly enough to meet threshold for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hi the local media doesnt follow or profile the Chhollywood as such media coverage isnt there except youtube (not accepted here) its neither the film or industry's fault. the significance original is huge for giving birth to san industry it even pushed other flicks behind. Raja Harishchandra and Alam Ara 2 important films, practically none review and virtually no coverage most mentions are books yet they have pages here, so why not this film you say notability, so what good has notability done for Thugs of Hindustan or Auron Mein Kahan Dum Tha both are mega flops but have pages here, a different matter there are mamy pages without 1 source here too Bonadart (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your want to keep this, but you stated yourself that the industry is not covered significantly in the media. Reiterating the same statement is not helpful and only leads to WALLSOFTEXT. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three sources were added recently and unfortunately after analyzing them, they all are found to be unreliable.
Source Vedant Samachar disclaimer says "Some elements of the site will contain material (news/photos/videos etc.) submitted by users. Vedanta Samachar accepts no responsibility for such material. The correspondent/reporter will be solely responsible for such material published in Vedanta Samachar; Vedanta Samachar or its owners, printer, publisher, editor will have no responsibility for it."
Source Kelo Pravah is a BLOG and gets its contribution from the users as it's a citizens journalism. It says "If you come across any important incident, accident, corruption, motivational story, story, social issue or any other matter around you, please share it with us. We assure complete protection of your privacy. Your contribution will enable us to provide better and meaningful news."
Source TheRuralPress says "The opinions and views expressed in articles, blogs, comments, or other content on TheRuralPress.in are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of S S B Media House." "While we strive to ensure that the information on this Website is accurate and up-to-date, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to the Website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the Website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk."
Comment I added the above sources since that's what I could find. Since I wasn't sure about notability, I didn't vote here. Although there are reliability concerns, those sources should have some edge over database sources #1-2, 8-9 and 10-13. 13 is very questionable to say the least. If you are keen to know my vote, it can be considered as weak delete (not opposed to redirect). DareshMohan (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it depends. When the Terms are absent of any claims about being accurate that to me is a red flag. For example, TheRuralPress at least states they strive for accuracy which means they would need likely need prove that if came to lawsuit (i.e. they make corrections, retract, etc.). Unfortunately, my anit-virus software gives me a security warning for TheRuralPress, which has nothing to do with reliability but I will not assess it myself. The Hindu simply states it is up the reader to evaluate their accuracy. However, they explicitly disclaim accuracy for opinions, third parties, etc. which is typical (same for NYT). It is not typical to state the reporters are responsible. That's crazy and strongly indicates they have no staff journalists and no editorial oversight. S0091 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Comment: I so much sense resubmitting after another. But if there is a bit notability, like appearing on non-notable films, and likely may later be notable in the future, I will support userfying. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!15:33, 13 September 2024 (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.
while a quick Google search will supply anyone with similar lists, thats not the issue with the article, it's that definition of what the genre is is not clear, and the inclusion of films is up to debate. These lists don't even agree with each other, so how do we classify this? (one lists the Pixar film Cars as the highest grossing, while the other lists The Blind Side, list can't be properly built upon vague interpretations on highest grossing if there is statements like this. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that one user or another decides whether a film belongs on the list, it's that there is no general consensus on what type of film belongs. As it can't be properly classified due to a lack of significant coverage, the list is unsustainable. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the person who first brought this up. This isn't an issue of "theres coverage for it" its that it is a definitional impossibility that conflicts with sports films and list of sports films. And it isn't something that can be fixed either by going through it and saying what is or is not a sports film based on sourcing because the whole thing is a failed exercise that cannot be undone. It's not even a split list as its contents contradict the other lists its supposedly split from. As an encyclopedia this article is so all over the place that while everyone here is debating Babe i'm noticing that according to it the top sports films of all time are Inside Out 2 and the entire Fast and the Furious series alongside the Dragon Ball anime. We could go into a deep philosophical discussion about "what is a sport anyway" but instead this article exists as a fork from sports movies for no reason. –– Lid(Talk)03:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm not in denial of it being treated as a sport, what is and what isn't a sport film is less abundantly clear, so we can't just apply items like this. It's not clear what constitute the sports film genre per the links earlier that have different criteria. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we need a definition for a sports film then (i always considered that t being about a sport event or training for a event) Babe (using this as example) is about babe training for a sheep dog trail then complete in the trail. Fanoflionking3 (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the genre is that is vague and unspecific. As shown by the two links above, there is no obvious connection between what is and what isn't. This is why an editor above may laugh at the idea of Babe being a sports film, while other may not. We can have our own personal definitions, but as that's not categorizable, we can't say what is higher grossing than the other. If a film were specifically about baseball we might be able to have some sort of list, but that would be relatively fringe. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somethings are clearly sports film (rockey for example), whiles others could be question (babe for example) using babe a done a sample of what we could do.Fanoflionking3 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the talk page would be more appropriate for this, as the genre does not seem to be very specific, I don't think a list like this can be really be built on any foundation without some more strict details of what the genre may include. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^in the film Babe, Babe the pig trains to take part in a sheepdog trail, sheepdog trails are considered a sport[1]
Keep as a notable stand-alone list topic even though the list's current contents and approaches are garbage. The problem is defining a sports film as opposed to films that have sports in part, like considering Forrest Gump a sports film is WP:UNDUE. I do oppose the more complex and cross-categorization lists that are embedded in this list article per WP:NLIST since some just get plain indiscriminate. I would support a hard-ass culling of this list. Regardless, there are reliable sources talking about highest-grossing sports movies, so the scope is 100% tenable. We have to overcome the sloppiness of this draft. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there being reliable sources talking about highest-grossing sports movies necessarily means that the scope is 100% tenable. If those sources do not agree what counts as sports movies and what does not, there does not exist a consensus scope, but an equivocation. Do the sources actually agree on the scope in a way that makes for list criteria that are clear-cut and enforceable here? TompaDompa (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the scope is 100% tenable. The problem is with how to present the details. We definitely have reliable sources writing about the highest-grossing sports films. Do we see these sources naming Forrest Gump and Babe as sports films? Or is it certain editors being ridiculously and erroneously pedantic here? Furthermore, reliable sources are not published with Wikipedia suitability in mind. So can we find a way to work with their coverage? Other approaches here could be to avoid an overall list and instead have various embedded lists by sports (e.g., highest-grossing baseball films). Or we could redirect to just sports film and write some prose saying what has been identified as highest-grossing films in the sports genre and not commit to a table. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)19:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we have different ideas about what it means for the scope to be tenable. If the best we can do is redirect to just sports film and write some prose saying what has been identified as highest-grossing films in the sports genre and not commit to a table, I would not consider the scope to be tenable. I would not even consider the scope to be tenable if we have to avoid an overall list. I'm sure we can find somewhere on Wikipedia to include the words "highest-grossing sports film(s)" with some relevant content, but that's a much lower bar. TompaDompa (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think TompaDompa's suggestion might be best. Being the third...fourth...fifth highgest grossing sports film is not something commonly applied to any film as an achievement and would be unmeasurable. Being the highest grossing sports film of all time or something is something you could potentially cover. The rest is just numbers games that we can't apply as with even sourced material above, there appears to be no consensus to what is and what isn't considered a sports film from person to person. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll quote myself from roughly a year ago over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing films based on television series: It is plain to see that this article, as so many box office lists before it, was inspired by the only such list on Wikipedia that is actually of high quality: List of highest-grossing films (a WP:Featured list). The problem with the proliferation of these lists is that they are created without understanding what it is that makes that list work, and they often just copy the structure without considering whether it is appropriate for the newly-created list—or indeed, considering whether the new list should exist at all. The result is that we have a plethora of poorly maintained, straight-up bad lists with myriad problems including—mainly—sourcing issues. This is, well, churnalism—or I suppose online one would call it content farming. It is the assembly of pure WP:RAWDATA by way of WP:Original research at the whims of Wikipedia editors who have mined box office databases for the data and come up with a new angle from which to slice it more-or-less arbitrarily. It is a scourge.As for what should be done about this list, specifically, if it is to be kept in any form whatsoever (be it as a stand-alone article or as part of some other article) it categorically needs to be demonstrated that it is actually possible to have inclusion criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources per WP:LISTCRITERIA, or in other words that there actually exists some kind of consensus among the sources about what belongs on the list and what does not. What we currently have fails the requirement from WP:LISTCRITERIA to Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. That goes for a lot of these lists. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a mirror of BoxOfficeMojo with some summaries ... that doesn't update as often. No effort to indicate when these statistics are captured or how out-of-date they might be. Or how they might compare across decades. And so the information is better kept at its source, and such an article offers no value. The inclusion criteria is between absurd and unenforced: there are silly entries (like *Babe*). But also entries for movies that haven't earned more than $10 million -- how could they possibly appear on any "highest-grossing" list? *Ben-Hur* for the "sport" of chariot racing? Come on. -- mikeblas (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see what value this article provides to the reader either. Reflecting the comment above, it is impossible to keep up to date. The problem is effective sourcing is another problem. I don't see its value as a standalone article. scope_creepTalk13:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Please note that this debate is not about whether the current contents of the page are to be retained, but whether the list could be compiled such that it meets LISTCRIT and other relevant guidelines. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎18:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 3 sources on the page. Source 1 by rediff is not a review. It talks about the film based on real life crime and the first half of the article is about the actual crime that took place and the second half of the article are claims/interview of the maker of the film, making the source not independent of the maker. Source 2 talks about the actual incident and just has a passing mention that the maker based his film on this actual incident. Source 3 is just a music site to listen to the songs. No significant coverage on the film itself from secondary independent sources. No multiple critical reviews. Fails WP:NFILM. If anyone can find 2 or more secondary independent reliable sources with significant coverage on just the film itself, I will reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources (a.k.a. no wiki links) and no reliable reviews. This may fail Wikipedia:Notability (films). This article about a short film is short because no other sources exist.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sayeye Penhan.
I am also nominating the following related page because it is also is sourced by a similar website (akhbarrasmi, is it notable?):
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, no participation so far. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Khosli is attractive and spectacular and this movie has found many fans.
In our opinion, Iranians, this is the best movie in the Middle East, and if there is a little source now, it is because this movie has just been waiting and the article will gradually mature and grow, and I ask you not to show too much sensitivity on this issue and let it remain an article to avoid wiki law. 5.233.227.181 (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Comment: I so much sense resubmitting after another. But if there is a bit notability, like appearing on non-notable films, and likely may later be notable in the future, I will support userfying. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
