Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saajan Ki Saheli

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 no consensus. Sandstein 15:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saajan Ki Saheli

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Saajan Ki Saheli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Sources are mostly just listings in databases. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 00:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Lots of trivial mentions, see 1, 2, 3, but no indication of any of these refs being significant, so WP:GNG nor WP:NFILM are met, so I agree with deletion. VickKiang (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How are databases not trivial mentions? VickKiang (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed as "delete", but reopening upon request for further consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshshsh: You state more sources will be added, if you can find more good refs, I'm more than happy to change my !vote. VickKiang (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: I know I voted above, but how is using the word still not clear enough? Still, as per your suggestion I've changed it, but it's obvious that I already voted and the closer will not count that as a double vote. VickKiang (talk) 11:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang: yes, but you didn't highlight "still". Never mind. Moreover though, I don't know where your "100+ words" claim comes from, but that's not how it works. The source you've mentioned by Jaskiran Chopra says the film was well-received. It's not only the length of coverage but also the nature of coverage, and saying the film is well-received is not a trivial mention. Shahid • Talk2me 11:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an essay (bolding to clarify), but see Wikipedia:One hundred words. I know it isn't policy, but it's just a rough guide. Per WP:AfC, SIGCOV usually means at least more than one paragraph. Yes, they aren't policy, but I couldn't agree at all that a couple of trivial mentions, bundled together, could be meeting notability? I'm also more curious, saying a 1-sentence "well-received" is not trivial makes no sense IMHO. How do you think it meets WP:GNG or WP:NFILM? VickKiang (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh:. Of course, it doesn't have to be the main topic, but per WP:GNG, Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. This in now way meets any criteria of WP:NFILM. But how is this more than a trivial mention? VickKiang (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, neither the length nor actual coverage is worthy of an article. It's not even saying the film received a major award or critical acclaim, just one ref saying it's well-received. By this logic, most film articles with one short ref and another trivial mention saying it received "positive reviews" is enough to warrant an article? VickKiang (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VickKiang: We disagree about the definition of "trivial". To answer your question, yes, saying it was well-received (and it's not a random tabloid, but a book source) is not trivial and it does contribute to the article's notability. It is obviously not the only source there. You should remember - there are just no archives of sources/newspapers published at the time of this film's release like there are for American publications which give you archives dating back to the 1930s. This mention explains the film did not go unnoticed. But don't worry, I'm going to add more sources. Shahid • Talk2me 11:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Shshshsh: Let's just respectively disagree. Yes, it's a book source, in my POV it meets reliable but not significant, though you probably disagree, which is fine and part of building a consensus:). I'm confident you can find a few and rescue the article! If so, ping me and I'll change my vote. Thanks and have a good day! VickKiang (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - having added other sources, from both books and newspapers, as well as one scholarly paper, I believe the article's notability has been established. Shahid • Talk2me 13:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well expanded by Shahid. DareshMohan (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So I've seen that there are some updates to this article but I don't think it passes WP:NFILM could someone walk me though how this article now passes WP:NFILM? If it passes I'll just withdraw the nomination. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 20:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Shshshsh: @Dr vulpes: my vote is still weak delete (note: this is in bold as I have striken my previous comment, it's no longer useful), but of course, this is just my personal opinion. Firstly, I need to thank Shshshsh a lot for this great rescue! But, while I'm sure that this will be closed as keep due to the brilliant expansion, I'm unsure. IMHO, ref 2 seems to be SIGCOV. Not sure about this ref, it looks like the only hit in the preview is the index, but the index says it's covered in Page 95 and 99. But how long is the coverage, Shshshsh? If you could transclude it and it turns out to be 1 or 2 pages, I'd change my vote. On ref 1, ref 7, and ref 8, my quick preview search only has 1 hit, IMHO it doesn't meet significant, but if you disagree that's perfectly fine and part of building the consensus! What about the online refs? Most of them are just mentions of the actors and their roles in films, along with a quick review. Ref 4, 9, and 10 are RS and are the more convincing refs in that they at least allow a verfiable, decently written reception section. At the other hand, none seem to directly cover the film in one paragraph, which is my guideline per WP:AfC (this doesn't link to the WikiProject, so apologies), or around 100 words (see previous linked essay). On the other hand, all of these refs taken together could be a convincing argument, despite me personally feeling like the online refs are kind of like WP:LOTSOFSOURCES (that's just my personal POV, of course...). I'd basically like Shshshsh to inform me- how long is this ref? If it's one or two pages, I'd be happy to change my vote entirely, but right now, I'm still going with weak delete to neutral, but would prefer this could be merged somewhere, though the result would probably be keep. VickKiang (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @VickKiang: In the book "Films and Feminism: Essays in Indian Cinema", an entire ten-page chapter is dedicated to an in-depth discussion of the family structure in four films, one of them being Saajan Ki Saheli. I've copied only short quotes. Shahid • Talk2me 09:27, 13 September 2022 (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/Saajan_Ki_Saheli&oldid=1110797084"