Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Shall Dance

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 redirect to Sonia Ahmed. The requests for userfication are moot since the material is still availble in the history. This close is without prejudice to future recreation if the film does become notable. SpinningSpark 11:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Shall Dance[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no secondary coverage, only reprints of director's statement/synopsis from official website BOVINEBOY2008 20:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The film will debut in September. Then we will have some media coverage for sure. I guess this film could be notable in the near future. Can't we wait some time? There are so many articles in WP without sources... --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This film doesn't meet WP:NFF, which is the guideline we generally follow for future films. Even if articles don't cite sources, we want to known if there are sources. I have done searching for this film and I don't find anything except for essentially press releases. BOVINEBOY2008 23:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that there are many articles in Wikipedia without sources. But there shouldn't be. DS (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not whether or not unsourced articles exist, its about whether or not sources exist that could allow eventual improvement of them. This one is close. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: I Shall Dance Sonia Ahmed Abid Ali Changezi

Delete - Non-notable, yet to be released film. We can revisit notability after release if it garners coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Deletethere are enough sources for now..... I think the author is adding more sources.... would suggest wait. --WolfCare50 (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Redirect title to filmmaker Sonia Ahmed after userfying content to author. Allow reversion of the redirect once WP:NF is met. To WolfCare50, please take a look at WP:V, WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT. Yes the article is sourced... but Wikipedia's requirement is that sources toward notability be reliable and independent of the topic. Touchgateglobal.com is not independent of its own production, Pakhungama.com is a WP:SELFPUB by someone on wordpress tools, IMDB shows an existence but is not suitable for our notability purposes. E-News Pakistan is probably suitable, but for unreleased films we need more than just two such sources. In consideration of WP:DONTBITE, I would suggest that this may be userfied on request back to its author at User:MinkyThePet/I Shall Dance until it is released and gains suitable reliable coverage in independent sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my i-vote. Return to sender as user draft until release and better sourcing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - There are so many movies in wikipedia which are created on the mere basis of IMDB Database - Ex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piku https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singh_Is_Bling and many more, their release dates are in the next years and wikipedia has allowed it! So I dont see the fuss made on this particular film which is set to release in September which is 2 months from now! --MinkyThePet (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, articles on future films are allowed if they meet the caveats set in WP:NFF (paragrah 3) requiring ongoing and persistent coverage. And what may have inspired the creation of those other articles (read WP:WAX) is not the issue, specially as they have sourcing away from IMDB. The "fuss" here is twofold: 1), this film has not itself received enough independent reliable coverage to merit being an exception to governing guideline WP:NFF and 2), please read WP:PROMOTION and study WP:PRIMER. Wikipedia is not a forum for promotion. I do not think anyone here is asserting that it should be deleted forever, only that it not go to article space until it is clearly seen that it merits inclusion. If you asked for it to be moved temporarily into a draftspace at User:MinkyThePet/I Shall Dance as you continue working on it, I believe that request will be met. But even when it does release in September, we will still require multiple reliable sources speaking about the film. Inclusion herein is not about existence, it'sabout meeting Wikipedia's definition of notability. That said, Wikipedia policy does allow that it may be spoken of until then in a related article... such as the one for its filmmaker Sonia Ahmed... where it is already mentioned. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in consideration of the improvements and sourcing added to this new article since its nomination,[1] and the fact that filming is complete and release is pending, I am seriously reconsidering my "delete" vote. Still musing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Now supporting a weak keep as coverage of this completed film meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Not on the basis of that sourcing, it doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my i-vote. Return to sender as user draft until release and better sourcing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of sourcing is not actually at a keepable level yet — rather, the article as written is relying almost entirely on primary sources and IMDb, with virtually no coverage in proper reliable sources to confer notability. That said, the quality of coverage is likely to improve once the film is actually released — so I'd suggest that it might be acceptable to hang onto it in draft or sandbox form, but it cannot stand in articlespace until the sourcing cuts the mustard. Delete or move into draftspace; no prejudice against recreation once real sourcing is actually available. Bearcat (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"enewspak.com" asserts itself as "Pakistan's top entertainment Website based Magazine", and offers coverage about director Sonia Ahmed (former Miss Pakistan World), and her project "I Shall Dance": November 2, 2013 July 6, 2014. I can accept this being moved to draftspace for a brief while. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of ten citations here I see eight that are to unreliable sources like press releases and IMDb, and only two that are to enewspak — and of those two, one is a blurb and the other is Sonia Ahmed writing about herself. Those might be acceptable for additional confirmation of facts as part of a diversity of reliable sources, but they don't cut it if they are the best reliable sources anyone can come up with. And that's not to even get into the rather large question of whether enewspak is really "Pakistan's top entertainment Website based Magazine", or just some dinky webmedia project that asserts itself to be "Pakistan's top entertainment Website based Magazine" for promotional purposes — what verification do we actually have, besides what the magazine asserts itself to be, of whether it actually lives up to that claim or not? Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Userfy and Delete without predjudice to recreation as per WP:NFF SPACKlick (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2014 (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.