Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coolie (1997 film)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coolie (1997 film)[edit]

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

non-notable film, current souces have coverage of the career of the actress Sadika Parvin Popy with just trivial mention of the film. See Talk:Coolie_(1997_film)#Notability for more detail. My searches have found nothing helpful to add. Fails to satisfy any elements of WP:NFILMS. Gab4gab (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article already proved by strongest reference with the notably guidelines. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 17:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it possible for you to mention what notability guideline you believe is satisfied and for that guideline which elements? The new sources you added today make only brief mention of this film. Gab4gab (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not notable i want to see whats is called notable? You haven't created any article yet. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 06:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you identify the guideline and elements you feel are satisfied I'll be happy to take a fresh look. The latest sources added are again articles about actors with very brief mentions of this film. Gab4gab (talk) 16:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 03:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Fulfill proved WP:NFILM. References are absolutely fine from the Bangladeshi national newspaper, just like Samakal, Manab Zamin, Jay Jay Din, Prothom Alo, Bhorer Kagoj, Jugantor. Brishti Akter (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at the sources you list I see only brief mentions of Coolie in each. Could you say what element(s) of WP:FILM you believe are satisfied by this?
- Samakal - mentions 'porter' (Coolie) is her 1st film and names the director (about 2 sentences)
- Manab Zamin - mentions Coolie at the end of a list of Sunny Omar films. (1 sentence)
- Jay Jay Din - a Popy career article that mentions Coolie is her first film, a blockbuster. (about 2 sentences on the film)
- Prothom Alo - a Popy has married article, says first film was 'Porter (Coolie)' in 1997 & it was a great success (2 sentences)
- Bhorer Kagoj - a Popy article, mentions her 1st film was Coolie (1 sentence)
- Jugantor - mentions Omar Sunny and Popy were in the film Coolie together (1 sentence)

Gab4gab (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Above listed ref. talking about the film and its great success in Bangladesh film industries. The film gained most popularity and great success that's established article most notable. The film was one of the highest grossing film in 1997. — Masum Ibn Musa ^Conversation 06:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:GNG calls for significant coverage that addressess the topic in detail. The cited sources state only the approximate release date; the names of the film, director, co-stars, and two of the supporting actors; and that it was Popy's first film. This is trivial coverage. If you doubt this, consider that WP:NFSOURCES elaborates that newspaper listings, capsule reviews, and listings in comprehensive film guides (all of which would include at least that much information, and likely more) are not significant coverage - they are insufficient to establish notability.

None of the specialized notability criteria for film are satisfied: no full-length reviews, no historical notability evidenced in the specified ways, no major awards, not selected for a national archive, and not taught at university. With respect to the other criteria to consider:

The director and several of the actors are notable, but it would be difficult to argue that the film was a major part of any of their careers, unless Wikipedia's position is that the first film of any notable actor is by definition a major part of their career. Even if that were the case, the 3-4 sentences of sourced information about the film could be included comfortably in Popy's biography, so the guidelines instruct us not to create an article on the film.

It is not immediately clear whether Bangladesh was a major film producing country in 1997. Even if it wasn't, however, if the film was produced by "Flamingo Movies", then the film wasn't produced by a "major film studio" of Bangladesh. Nor is it notable for anything more than merely having been produced. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Worldbruce. but what you refer to as "notability criteria for film" are not actually notability critera requirements. They are only attributes to encourage searching for sources should the attributes exist. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment released film receiving media attention in enough reliable sources to meet WP:NF in Bangladesh and encourage a far more diligent prior to nominations. The film has IMDB page which also proved that the film does exist and it's important. As the current coverage is acceptable, the coverage and the quality of articles on other Wikis look good. In my view, enough to slightly passed WP:NFILM. Brishti Akter (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - Have you considered changing your 'Strong Keep' position of 9 Jan given your 'slightly passed' comment today? Gab4gab (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its not 'slightly passed', its 'enough to slightly passed' Gab4gab. No question about notable. Brishti Akter (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - It would be helpful @Brishti Akter: for you to explain what specific sources you feel lead to passing what specific elements of what notability standard. It's still a bit of a puzzle how 'enough to slightly passed' would lead to a 'Strong Keep' or 'No question of notable' position. Are you simply taking a WP:ITSNOTABLE position? When I said your previous list of sources had only trivial coverage you didn't respond to my question regarding notability guideline elements satisfied. You haven't pointed to different sources that contain significant coverage. Gab4gab (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily Passed Wikipedia:NFILM no doubt about the notable of this article and its huge coverage in Bangladesi media. Its sister article bengali is looking good with the 4 references. References are this article directly talking about the film and also its success. David Benzam^Contact 13:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that David Benzam (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. David Benzam has edited on four days in the past eighteen months. On each of those four days they !voted keep at an AfD for an article authored by Masum Ibn Musa (talk · contribs), and for which Masum Ibn Musa also !voted keep.

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

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Coolie (1997 film) Kuli (1997 film) কুলি (১৯৯৭) Montazur Rahman Akbar

- So many ways to search. Still nothing significant in the article sources or identified here in discussion. Gab4gab (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:NF even if only in Bangladeshi. Sources never have to be substantive just so long as the topic of this 20-year-old film is spoken of directly and enough detail to prevent original research. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of non-English source has been looked at and included in the article. It's not about the source language, it's about the lack significant coverage. Gab4gab (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete The argument for keeping here seems to be that this film is independently notable but examining the sources offered shows they are apparently not about this film itself, but rather about its star. These are, essentially, WP:INHERITED arguments and not helpful. There needs to be more evidence of coverage that is both independent and significant in order to be notable, and that is missing here.

Keep Basically i work in Bengali wikipedia. Not much great exprence in English wikipedia but this artcle much better to estabilshed notbaly guidline with Bangladeshi media coverage. See Bengali version of wikipedia. Agree with @MichaelQSchmidt:. Tmsayfullah (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tmsayfullah: Welcome to the English Wikipedia. It's understandable that on your first day editing here you may not be familiar with our guidelines for notability. The Bengali Porter (film) article you mention has only four sources referenced. Three of them are also references in our article. Bengali ref #1 is our #2, #2 is our #8, #4 is our #12. The fourth is a reference to a BMDB page about the actress Poppy. We don't use that because it's not considered a reliable source. Our article has references to twelve sources while the Bengali article has a third that number. Which leads me to ask why do you feel seeing the Bengali article shows better notability than what we have in the English Wikipedia? In general we look for significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Gab4gab (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2017 (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.