Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saanch Ko Aanch Nahin

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 keep. joe deckertalk to me 19:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saanch Ko Aanch Nahin[edit]

Saanch Ko Aanch Nahin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem notable, no references at all. WOLfan112 (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check in google books?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several snippet views in the Google Book search that Dr. Blofeld helpfully provided, and they certainly verify that it existed, but do the snippets satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (films)? Did it win an award, get multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources, or in some other way demonstrate notability? Maybe it would be sufficient to mention it in an article about its creator, Tarachand Barjatya, who appears to have made dozens of films and who does actually get significant coverage. Edison (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements since nomination showing the topic as having received notice and having been written up in books... making it into the enduring record. With the greatest of respects to User:Edison, while it certainly would have been nice if decades-old hardcopy news sources were online, we have no realistic expectation that Indian news coverage from years before the creation of the internet would all be scanned and archived... and that it was thought highly enough of to be written up in books is a decent indicator of notability. Per WP:NTEMP, and while it might always be a short start class and not FA, this one is a keeper. Kudos to Dr. Blofeld. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was there any book which gave more information about the film than just a passing mention? I see that only the "Film world" one did so. All others only indicated a passing mention of the film. Secret of success (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above reasons and the improvements done. Agree with Schmidt. And also with the huge number of films made by Indian film industry, seemingly passing references of these films in the web-world should be considered sufficient for notability. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree. Passing mentions cannot be a reason for notability, no matter what. If sources are not available, no article. The argument that "it is an old and iconic film" is invalid, because all articles in Wikipedia fall under the more or less same notability criteria. Secret of success (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An online search for English language sources for a 25 year old Hindi language film is not the best way to determine notability. The fact that it is mentioned at all in the English sources all these years later strongly implies that contemporary Hindi sources exist (e.g newspaper reviews), although they are very unlikely to be found online. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Considering the current state of the article, it seems to have a decent coverage. Cavarrone (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate? How is it that the state of the article and the coverage of the subject are related? Secret of success (talk) 06:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There sources we do have at least indicate it meets guidelines.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please be more specific about the sources? Secret of success (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. The "secret of success" is not to dwell lugubriously over certain things and just to get on with it. This doesn't stand a snowball in hell's chance of being deleted, so its pretty pointless continuing to argue the point. Thaddeus has said all that needs to be said.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that generic comments be pushed aside for a suggestion involving decrepit chances of deletion. Conclusions without reason tend to be quite nugatory and useless. If it is found to not be on par with the criteria, there's no point in jumping to hope that the mob will fall for it. Secret of success (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thaddeus, evidence is required for every subjective claim, and notability is certainly one of them. "Assuming" that it exists is quite imprudent and doesn't strengthen an argument in any way. Regards, Secret of success (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, evidence is not required to make a comment to say that sources can be presumed to exist and are unlikely to be found online and/or be in English. Since I don't speak Hindi and don't live in India, it is not possible for me to go to the local library and look for said sources. However, that doesn't mean I can't make a comment about where proof of notability is likely to exist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What Thaddeus and i wanted to point at was probably not clear. This film is 33 year old. The references present as of now in the article are, frankly speaking, too many. One of that actually tells you how the film did not do well. The only reliable website for boxoffice collection of hindi films Boxofficeindia.com does not keep records of all films. In fact it keeps records of only say 20 top films per year. It does not even list down the films released that year. We know that the releases are far more than that. There are no numerous books written on indian films. A few notable ones cover the whole industry by length. Given their coverage you can not expect them to cover all films. (Also not being covered by these famous books does not make it non-notable.) A film does not have to be block-buster to be on wikipedia. But looking at the general trend of books, the film needs to be a box-office starer to be written about. Given these circumstances, the references provided are far more than sufficient. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, different circumstances do not validate different standards of notability. Every article on Wikipedia, regardless of its subject, follows the more or less same notability criteria. Trivial coverage does not instigate notability, whatsoever. The argument that "the film is 33 years old, hence a passing mention is sufficient" is undoubtedly invalid, because of this reason. Secret of success (talk) 05:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, different circumstances can indeed guide our decision here. While its always mandated that information be verifiable, the guideline for notability acknowledges that lack of acccess to complete texts of 33-year-old not-online sources is not always a valid reason to delete... and if it is found that the arguments draw a reasonable or common sense conclusion that years-old notability is still valid, then the closer will abide by that consensus. You might then ask yourself if anything contained in the article is not verifiable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Schmidt, notability can be talked about only if its criteria are satisfied. WP:NTEMP clearly says "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." The general notability guideline quotes "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria." I see no "common sense conclusion for notability" here that would merit breaking the guideline without reason. Unless it can be proved that offline sources exist, pure assumptions do not tend to work. Secret of success (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can one prove that offline sources exist? Can you please give some examples? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Animeshkulkarni: I think it may be that because we cannot see the offline 33-year-old, pre-internet sources alluded to by multiple book and news snippets and multiple references that he feels they must not have existed, and a reasonable presumption of pre-internet, pre-Wikipedia, past notability can then be dismissed.
Since the internet and Wikipedia did not exist 33 years ago, we could not have had Wikipedia editors 33 years ago finding and offering the coverage alluded to in the books and news snippets. And while he quotes "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage," I suppose it has to to do with a different interpretation of WP:NTEMP and its understanding that sources, specially pre-internet, pre-Wikipedia, non-English sources, would not neccessarily be online nor have an eternal electronic life if they were.
Even the little that is avaiable online shows us that this film has made it into the enduring record, and we others here may then use the common sense encuraged by guideline to accept that even as a stub, it is/was notable enough for inclusion herin. Had there been absolutely noone anywhere speaking toward this film, then his presumption of non-notability might have merit. But as we have enough to conclude it was covered 33 years ago, we can conclude notability even in the lack of ongoing coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Schmidt, no one is debating the existence of the project. The concern is the content of the article if it is held and maintained. What do you think should it be? That "Saanch Ko Aanch Nahin was mentioned in the book XXX" or ""Saanch Ko Aanch Nahin was mentioned in the book YYY"? There has to be some stuff attributed to sources, and none of the sources seem to speak anything about the film. Secret of success (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2012 (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/Saanch_Ko_Aanch_Nahin&oldid=1146595461"