Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aa Bhi Ja O Piya

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 delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aa Bhi Ja O Piya[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NFILM Tehonk (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 March 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added 2 refs. ~~Not opposed to keep, but~~ opposed to deletion. ~~If coverage is judged insufficient, redirect to List of Hindi films of 2022~~.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--->changing to Keep in light of 2nd review (see below).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First added link is a press release as it can be seen from from URL structure, writer name as "ANI PR" and the disclaimer at the end: "This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content." These press releases can't be used to determine notability. Its "strong box office start" claim also contradicts the second link's "opening: very poor" statement. Tehonk (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, don’t use it, then, and feel free to remove it from the page. It’s a mirror of a link I did not manage to format properly. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC) PS- I took the liberty to do it myself and put the original ANI link mentioning the contradiction you have noted.[reply]

See comment below, Mushy Yank. -The Gnome (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saw it. I consider the film meets GNG. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Redirection from editors, especially nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favor of deleting per NOTDIRECTORY, apart from insufficient coverage, the "widely distributed" part of the criterion doesn't seem to be met either. Tehonk (talk) 22:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all sources are listings and announcements. Nothing to truly support notability in general or filmic terms. Wikipedia is a not a collection of random information nor a directory of film titles. -The Gnome (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added a second review that saves the article, per WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFILM requires reviews from nationally known film critics and not just any review in any publication. Pankaj Pandey, the author of the text in Raj Express, does not satisfy aforesaid criterion. We still only have about one half of a review-cum-advertorial. -The Gnome (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Delete While Raj Express is an independent and reliable source that can be used because of its editorial oversight, the other source from Film Information cannot be considered an independent review. It was posted by Film Information desk without any specific author, and these types of posts are generally part of press releases and paid branding. So, this film does not meet WP:NFILM with only one review. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see why Komal Nahta's FIlm Information should be considered unreliable nor not independent. As for the general assumption that these types of posts are generally part of press releases and paid branding., applying it to the present case does not seem exactly obvious.... just look at the review. If that is a PR data copy-paste, with such PR who needs enemies?:D -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No matter who owns Film Information, but for Indian films, I believe the review should be from a named critic because there are many websites that publish paid reviews and articles. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which does really not seem to be the case here but thank you for your reply. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List_of_Hindi_films_of_2022#October–December. I could not find top critics reviewing this movie or any major known websites with any coverage on the film other than the synopsis. RangersRus (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'm seeing No consensus right now. This might be time for a source analysis table.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: most of the sources are press releases/announcements. ANI is marginally reliable at best and neither article was written by them. One is attributed to SRV which is a digital marketing agency and the other to NewsVoir which is a press release service. I share DreamRimmer's concern about Film Information insofar as there is not a named author and it is not a widely used source so does not appear to meet "nationally known critic" per WP:NFILM. That leaves maybe one critical review which is not enough. No issue with redirecting though. S0091 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The Film Information and Raj Express reviews both look usable to me. In particular Film Information describes itself as "the most widely read film trade magazine in the film industry and is known as the industry’s Bible since 49 years. Founded by late Shri Ramraj Nahta, it is being run by his son, Komal Nahta, since 1993 when Shri Nahta passed away." That is as something at least trying to be a reliable source and not a fan site. Note also that the review is negative enough that it is pretty clear not a paid ad. Also, the Bhaskar.com source looked probably reliable to me as reportage of rather than copying a press release, but I can't read the whole thing. In short I would rate the sources as just over rather than just short of the WP:NFILM line. If there is no consensus to keep the article, a redirect to List_of_Hindi_films_of_2022#October–December is certainly a reasonable ATD. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable short. The sources are not impressive. Even the better sources fail to establish notability. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The two reviews cited in the discussion appear to be enough. Komal Nahta, the writer of Film Information, appears to be a subject matter expert in film because he is relied upon by RSes, for example: [1] and [2]. Raj Express is an RS that appears to circulate in several major cities in India. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:14, 1 April 2024 (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.