Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Pocket Gangsters

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

The result of the discussion was I moved the draft to the main space, and I close this discussion as moot. There is no prejudice against opening an Afd and moving the comments there (or providing a link), but it should not be discussed here anymore.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pocket Gangsters[edit]

Draft has not been edited since January 2014, with the last edits to improve the page (not bot edits/cleanup of wikiSpeak/vandalism reversion) was in May of 2013. The "author" of this page hasn't edited since the same May 2013 date. Several facutal errors (such as the release date being claimed as July 2013 when IMDB (for it's flaws) lists it as January 2015. Suggest that this be deleted without prejudice to re-creation if/when there is content that can pass the WP:NFILM threshold Hasteur (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'd normally say fix it up and kick it to mainspace (since it shouldn't take much), but other indicators tell me that would be futile given this subject doesn't appear to pass WP:NFILM: There don't even seem to be indicators the film was ever released (I don't see any post-release press). There's some hype related to its production, but I can't tell if it's significant or independent enough to pass GNG. Taken with that, the right move is to just delete the draft as a WP:STALEDRAFT without prejudice to recreation. This is, of course, assuming that MfD is the right venue, given that this appears to have been originally created in mainspace, boldly incubated, and then moved to draft space after the article incubator shut down. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for if moved back to main that would be it's fate most likely. Legacypac (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Was released in January 2015. All information indicates an amateur production, little better than a home movie. No reviews. User:MichaelQSchmidt, who saved it from PROD and moved it to the article incubator, might like to review. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not the place for immediatists/deletionists to impose time limits on content builders, especially not in DraftSpace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Searches:

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

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

filmmaker:(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)

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

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

& WP:INDAFD: "Pocket Gangsters" "Hemant Nilim Das" "Vikram Shah" "Ciemme Entertainment" "Mukesh Bhatt" "Shivangi Mehra" "Madhur Mittal" "Vijay Raaz"

Keep and move to article space as the film is released and production has the coverage it lacked in 2013 to now meet WP:NF. Being a stale draft shows the weakness of things being forgotten in draftspace, but Hasteur, SmokeyJoe, Legacypac, Mendaliv... ping me and I'll gladly do some work on it when it returns. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is live now and can be improved. Improve it demonstrating notability and maybe people will change their votes. Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thank you. I have been doing so, and it was I who added the search links to the discussion here that the MFD template did not. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But while 2013 was at that time a bit TOO SOON, I now suggest to Hasteur, SmokeyJoe, Legacypac, and Mendaliv... there is no rush to improve now, for a completed released film which was easy to ascertain under applicable guideline and WP:NF that the film topic now meets inclusion criteria per Times of India (1), Times of India 92), India.com (1), Business of Cinema, India TV, Indiaglitz, Pinkvilla, India Blooms, Mizo News, India.com (2), Times of India (3), Bollywood Life, and many others. As the topic is now proven notable per guideline, this MFD is moot,and there is no need for continued discussion or a forced cleanup. Let's close this discussion and move this to mainspace so we can all get on with building an encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even with MichaelQSchmidt's cleanups, if we were to play the WP:BURO argument through and promoted the page to mainspace only to have it back on the deletion wagon via CSD:Notability (Articlespace) or AFD (dye to the lack of notability demonstrated in the article) we would probably end up at the same exact discussion of noting how there isn't enough content here to justify inclusion in the English Wikipedia. This doesn't bar the film from existing in the Hindi wikipedia, but for the lack of independent reliably sourced content, I cannot justify doing the Burecratic shuffle only to end up at the same end game. Hasteur (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also thank you MQS for making edits, because that gave me a backdoor to go ahead and put this previously unsubmitted draft into AFC review to challenge it's suitability/viability for mainspace. Hasteur (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hasteur. It certainly was not ready back in pre-production 2013 and we had non-delete options even then... but now with its verifiable release, its coverage in multiple reliable sources will allow it to meet WP:NF. And note, according to WP:CSD itself, sourced film articles (even crappy and stubby one) are ineligible for speedy. I would have moved it to article space myself were it not for my editing it. With the move, this discussion has been rendered as unnecessary. Anyone can close as now moot. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not moot, and if it is closed as such I will call the question at DRV for improperly closed deletion as the fundamental defect of WP:NFILM not having yet been met. Most of the sources are either directory listings (which do not confer notability) or Press tour interviews with people directly associated with the film (and therefore not independent). The only thing that contributes some notability is the two Times of India pieces about Raghubir Yadav's contribution to the film, but Notability is not Inherited. If this film was notable, it should have been present in the filmography sections of the 3 bluelinked actors. Hasteur (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine that we disagree. But it does not matter if some of the pertinent significant coverage might be about an actor just so long as the film is spoken of directly and in detail. I remind that WPSIGCOV #1 specifically instructs that a source does not have to be solely about the topic being discussed. And personally I believe it is an unfortunate misrepresentation to imply that sources Times of India (1), Times of India 92), India.com (1), Business of Cinema, India TV, Indiaglitz, Pinkvilla, India Blooms, Mizo News, India.com (2), Times of India (3),and Bollywood Life, are simply "directory listings" when they are not. I will not be the one to close, and putting a scare into others will likely prevent a proper close 11 days after this discussion was opened, but I believe a WP:DRV would agree with my evaluation that even if it still needs work, the topic is now proven notable per guideline and that this MFD is moot and a timely close as keep is proper... for if seen as notable, there is no need for continued discussion or a forced cleanup. And conversely, if deleted through scare tactics, a DRV would support an overturn. Jus' sayin'. I am not invested and there is no harm in waiting. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's fine. Michael is a rabid inclusionist, and the project would be far less than it is without the inclusionists. Maybe even unviable. Imagine if these processes and policies were in play in the first three years. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some label me an inclusionist. Okay, fine... I'd rather fix something I determined as fixable, rather than delete it simply because it lacked some easy-to-do work. And yes, SmokeyJoe, it would seem reasonable to assert that improving articles to better serve the project is the way an encyclopedia is built. I do however balk at the use of "extreme inclusionist" or "rabid inclusionist", as use of such negative adjectives toward other editors turn "inclusionist" into a slur. I am not "extreme", and a simple check shows I am just as willing to opine for deletion of an article at AFD as I am a keep. And I am not "rabid". Sure... I might be dedicated to improving savable articles (680 so far), but I have not been contracted rabies nor am I foaming at the mouth. Within this community, improving articles should never be thought of in the negative, as making Wikipedia a better place for its readers is supposedly the reason we are all here... as Wikipedia is about the readers and not about the editors... and immediatism is not a policy. That said, I take no offense from "rabid deletionists" wishing to make Wikipedia a whole lot smaller. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update pings to Hasteur, SmokeyJoe, Legacypac, Mendaliv:

Here is what I incubated in 2013 as TOO SOON

Here is what was sent to Draft Space when the Incubator was shut down in 2014

Here is what was brought to AFD in March 2016 6 as a "stale draft".

And Here is what a little editorial attention can do.

SmokeyJoe changed his opinion. Anyone else? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the attitude you twerp. So we only have one "reception" from times of India. Let's put on our thinking caps and think about how many films are reviewed by Times of India yearly. Now lets look at the Times of India content. Really nothing more than a directory listing with no critical reception. As I said, probably not appropriate for english wikipedia, but probably reasonable for Hindi language wikipedia (where this belongs). Hasteur (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under policy and guideline, many foreign films whaich have never seen the inside of a US theater are accepted for en.Wikipedia, as the English Wikipedia does not limit itself to English-only topics. And notability is not based upon a film ever being reviewed (though it does help), but rather upon the wider coverage of aspects of a film's production. I am surprised at the WP:ADHOM, as I have no "attitude" and am not being a "twerp", but am simply and carefully explaining my understanding of guideline and policy in relationship to this topic. Thank you though for sharing your opinions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can buy an article in pretty much any Indian paper so I give less weight to Indian news. We need solid coverage, not brief mentions. Legacypac (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts, and I while agree that Indian media cover topics differently than does western media, those differences are why I made sure the article here was very well sourced. And what I will explain in and what will likely be accepted at a DRV (if this goes that far), is that while "substantial" coverage is preferred, WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a guideline nor policy mandate. Guideline tells us that a subject being sourced does not have to be the sole topic of a citation source, and more-than-trivial lengthy "mentions" addressing the topic directly and in detail found in multiple reliable sources meet the definitions set for acceptability by WP:SIGCOV. Thank you for returning to look in. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:59, 23 March 2016 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.