Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6th Filmsaaz

Add links
From 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 merge to Filmsaaz. Discounting single-purpose accounts.  Sandstein  08:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

6th Filmsaaz[edit]

6th Filmsaaz (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)

I don't think this meets WP:NOTABILITY. I proposed a merge to Filmsaaz but this seemed to have been hi-jacked by WP:SPA WP:SOCKPUPPETs. I see no evidence of this being notable and so think it should be deleted. It could also possibley be merged and redirected. Boleyn (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge to Filmsaaz- although there is frightfully little reliably sourced content to merge and what is sourced is probably already covered in that article so a delete would not harm much of anything. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Or merge per TheRedPenOfDoom, no independent RSs.Pincrete (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- it is a short film festival which has its own standing. There is a scope for improvement of the article.Hosnimobarok (talk) — Hosnimobarok (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 21:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hosnimobarok, after the merge discussion was hijacked by WP:SPAs, I'm concerned that you have now emerged, and on your 1st day of editing have come here to defend this organisation. Are you connected to the other WP:SPAs and do you have a WP:COI? Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone interested can see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EyThink where there is evidence of using sockpuppetry to try to keep this page. No evidence that Hosnimobarok is involved, but I am still dubious about an WP:SPA entering a discussion in this manner (see WP:DUCK). Boleyn (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • whether or not actual socks, WP:MEAT is clearly evident of SPA COI editors associated with the school making edits and arguments that are indistinguishable from each other (notice for example the frequent claim that a celebrity "gracing" the proceedings is somehow evidence of notability, or the endless protestations that a passing mention in a national publication should by its mere existence prove notability). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Before accusing others, please prove your neutrality against Aligarh Muslim University as is evident in Talk:Aligarh_Muslim_University, we can clearly see that even in the past you had issues with this university and reprimanded by other editors. You don't carry a neutral view regarding this university from the beginning so its allied institutes. And, regarding edits and its similarity, let me clear one thing to you, we editors don't go to field to see the happenings, we only rely on sources and in this case we relied on several news websites which are most reliable in India which you don't recognize as reliable. Regarding celebrity gracing the event definitely makes this festival an important one and the celebrity was non other than Nawazuddin Siddiqui who is a star in India. So every editors who claimed the celebrity gracing have the same thinking the 6th Filmsaaz is also important because a celebrity graced the occasion as a chief guest. Firstly you raised about notability which was resolved by putting some more references, but you didn't get satisfied as you have a biased opinion as seen in Talk:Aligarh_Muslim_University. Do you think that New York times come and make a indepth report on 6th Filmsaaz? Remember in India all newspapers and news sites are like that only. We have to be practical. No sources referred in the article contradicted anything written in it and all sources are most reliable.AJ_Think 19:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arifjwadder (talk • contribs) — Arifjwadder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
My neutrality is evident in my edits to make the Aligarh Muslim University and related articles reflective of the reliable third party source coverage. Please prove your neutrality. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 Talk 12:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Filmsaaz. Clearly not notable enough for its own article. Onel5969 TT me 14:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- it must not be merged to Filmsaaz, as if it merged then the award list cannot be accommodated in Filmsaaz. I think it is notable enough to have its own article with its international character.Firangee (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC) {{[reply]
  • Comment Yet another WP:SPA emerging to argue for this article. Firangee, were you canvassed to come here or are you a WP:SOCKPUPPET? Boleyn (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)— Firangee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Please assume good faith.The article is notable according to WP:GNG and It is representing fairly, proportionately and without bias, all of the significant news and views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All third party references are reliable and genuine secondary news website in India.Firangee (talk) 17:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they are not. For example, the TOI piece is a promotional for request for submissions, not third party. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:29, 28 August 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/6th_Filmsaaz&oldid=1136670709"