Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uvaa

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. Normally I'd relist with only one !vote, but the rationale of insufficent notability was so comprehensively refuted that I believe going ahead and closing is the correct course of action. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uvaa[edit]

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

No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Apart from IMDb, the only sources cited are three pages on a web site called www.bollywoodhungama.com, which provide nothing but lists of credits and a three-sentence plot summary. From a Google search for "Uvaa" most of the hits on the first couple of pages were such things as this Wikipedia article, IMDb, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc, also pages merely giving credits and similar soutine content. I also found a few reviews, but they were largely in either local news media, trade papers (e.g. the "International Business Times") or unreliable sources of one kind or another. (For example, what appeared from its tilte to be a review in the Times of India turned out to be a web page where members of the public are invited to submit their reviews, not a review by a Times of India journalist.) (A PROD was removed with an edit summary saying "I don't get this... do you think it is a hoax or something?" However, that doesn't seem to make much sense, as the PROD reason was "No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines": nothing to do with being a hoax.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Keep While Bollywood Hungama is okay enough for verifiability, we need actual and coverage in reliable sources. So in using WP:INDAFD, I looked and found "Uvaa" "Jasbir Bhati" "Dhanraj Films" "Mohit Baghel" "Sheena Bajaj" "Manish Chaudhary" "Lavin Gothi" giving coverage toward film, director and some of the more notable cast, and when due diligence shows multiple secondary in-depth several film reviews and substantive coverage of production in Mid Day, Sify, Mumbai Mirror Bollywood Hungama, Indian Express, International Business Times, Bollywood Life, Times of India, Free Press Journal, Business Standard, I have shown that WP:NF is easily met under WP:NRVE. So maybe the nominator might review some of the available sources and reconsider his stance? Any perceived issues with article tone can be addressed through regular editing and deletion is not the proper outcome. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:58, 17 December 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.