Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saathi (1991 film)

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. This is close, but on the balance there is consensus to delete. I am very cognizant of the issue of systemic bias, but there's only so far that argument can take us, and here we are also discussing a 1991 film from an enormous industry in a country with substantial English-language media. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saathi (1991 film)[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)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE

PROD removed with "Afd it" DonaldD23 talk to me 13:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sources had been added even before this AfD, and there are plenty of sources available online. Needs expansion, not deletion. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the added sources are reviews. Two of the books only have one line devoted to the film, another book is just a database listing. One book doesn't have a preview available so I cannot judge its merit...but even in the off chance it is a thorough review, one isn't enough for notability requirements. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: Read WP:GNG. That you do not have access to the books, doesn't mean it's not a proper source. And finally, you should know by now, no sources from the era prior to the 2000s are available from the Indian press online. Your logic would mean no Indian film from older Hindi cinema could be notable. I object. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledged that the one book I couldn't access might be counted toward notability, so I am not sure what your disagreement it? As for the other 2 books that I do have access to...they are just a one line mention and you should know by now that that is not anywhere close to meeting WP:GNG guidelines. Existing does not mean inclusion on Wikipedia. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: Let's agree to disagree and let the community decide. I've said it many times, I see tremendous bias against Indian articles just because they do not have the amount of coverage present in the west. I'm not accusing you specifically, I'm sure you mean well, it's a systemic problem on WP which should be fought against. I felt it everywhere, when I worked on FAs, GAs, and other instances. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources are non-RS for sure. Fails WP:GNG unless new sources can be found and added. Current sourcing for from sufficient.— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 20:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Moops: The books cited are non-RS? What are you basing youself on? Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the fact that 2 of them are just one line mentions. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: RS is about reliability, not extent of coverage. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:42, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True, but GNG is about significant coverage. And one line in a book does not meet that. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: Moops did not mention GNG, only RS - so I can't see why you'd defend that. And one line can establish notability, depends on what it says. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV is also a valid concern, thanks Donaldd23. Books, being primary sources, are okay, but not by themselves without substantiated secondary sources from a GNG standpoint. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One line in a book can establish notability? Please, please link the policy that says that. DonaldD23 talk to me 18:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: Please show where it says in SIGCOV that one line is excluded from establishing notability. SIGCOV talks about trivial mentions, and it's not the same thing. If one line says, "X, which is considered one of the best Indian films of all time", that wouldn't qualify as a trivial mention - it's one line but one that carries a lot of weight. The books cited on the page do not provide trivial mentions, in my opinion (neither do they give deep coverage but that is beside the point). Further information is provided about the film's budget, box-office performance, theme. The film definitely gets sufficient coverage and all the mentions together create what I believe is notability per WP:GNG. That's why I'm saying, it's better to agree to disagree. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty broad definition of SIGCOV covering one line. A statement by someone saying something is "the best of all time" is trivial unless backed up by multiple independent and reputable critics. I can publish a book saying that "Mouse Rat is one of the best bands ever", but that does not make it SIGCOV. But, yes, lets agree to disagree and let other editors weigh in. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:12, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment more sources added, including an entry from no less than Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema, box-office information by India Today with details about budget and BO verdict, and controversy related to its Pakistani star. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Like many films it's difficult to find extensive coverage, but the article looks acceptable to me in it's current form.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well sourced and satisfies WP:GNG as well as WP:NFILM. The nominator seems to be prejudiced against Indian films and even got Puthiya Vaarpugal deleted, when it had a reliable review and other reliable sources; he seemingly did not search for more sources or consult others when an AfD could have alerted more users. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (for now) Ref#1 Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema - Verifies that the film exists, nothing towards notability #2 BollywoodHungama - database entry for verification #3 Queer Asian Cinema has a trivial mention that the film is about male-bonding. #4 BollySwar - More or less a database in the form of a book #5 India Today - Provides budget and box-office verdict (aka trivial mention) #6 Tribune - Primary source (need to be discarded to prove notability) #7 White on Green - Mentions one of the lead character's (Mohsin's) favourite performance and describes what he does in the film aka description of the film aka plot summary [that we usually write in the lead] - all trivial #8 Crossover stars - A mention of Mohsin's successful film which is this film ——— I don't think the sources presented in the article count towards GNG. Since all being trivial mentions, they need to collectively establish GNG, which I believe are not. While there certainly ~~will~~ could be offline sources, in an AfD one should actually present them despite them being hard to find. Perhaps someday someone will be able to uncover them and the article could be revived. WP:NEXIST encourages editors to consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any, as such I'm still undecided on what my !vote would be. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC) (14:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]
The new ref #7 Deccan Chronicle - Comment from the director - primary source. While the book "Crossover stars" says the film is Mohsin's successful film, it is unclear if that is a major part of their career - from WP:NF#Inclusionary criteria. "Most successful film" ≠ "major part of their career" unless stated by WP:RS

Addressing a comment from above: no sources from the era prior to the 2000s are available from the Indian press online. Since we are at AfD determining the notability, these sources need to be uncovered as we must verify. Offline sources are acceptable but not a broad veil argument that "[they are] available from xyz" without providing any WP:NRV evidence. WP:N's second line reads: Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. As such.. delete — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC) (amended 14:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently looks like no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––FormalDude (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - more sources have been added, including information about a recent film which happens to be loosly inspired by the current picture. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are in-depth reviews. They are all passing mentions. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Donaldd23: They do not have to be in-depth reviews. We actually see that a recent movie was inspired by this film. If this isn't evidence of the original's notability, I don't know what is. That's why I said that you appear to misinterpret the idea of "mention" in the context of WP:GNG. But let it be, we've had enough of these arguments. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking forward to hearing from other editors on this one — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🎉 _{(HAPPY 2023)} 10:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom unless better sources are found. Passing mentions don't satisfy WP:NFILM. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DaxServer. The references IMO appear to be mentions, listings, databases, or other short/routine coverage quoted from the director. I personally consider these to be non-SIGCOV but feel free to disagree here. My WP:BEFORE located more mentions, i.e., 1, 2, 3, which IMHO doesn't meet significant coverage as well. VickKiang (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DaxServer's very well reasoned commentary above. The sources presented, for my interpretation of "significant coverage", aren't up to scratch to demonstrate notability here. Daniel (talk) 10:35, 19 January 2023 (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.