Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toofan Singh (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 Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toofan Singh (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)

This film article fails all the criterias defined at Wikipedia:Notability (films). The film failed to get any attention and coverage other than WP:ROUTINE coverage of a film that was banned by Central Board of Film Certification. The subjects bio was a blatant WP:Puffery and I suspect the film's article and the WP:Bio were created for WP:Promotional reasons. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 06:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may actually meet NFILM's review criteria, however it is far easier to assess that it meets WP:GNG. As the banning of the film in India (the paradox - leads to Wikipedia notability) led to independent coverage in RSes - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] - we have SIGCOV from sources independent of the movie (as well as a review by the censor). Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it clearly does not pass WP:NFILM review criteria which states that "The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.". if you disagree please provide the reviews by nationally known critics. This article is a part interview + part Promo type article that is expected to be peddled by the Movie Promotion team of every film that gets released. It is expected that AfD contributors will produce sources that show the significant independent coverage per GNG. IMHO GNG should not be used as an excuse to bypass specific notability criterias such as WP:NFILM so as to help the movie PR team reap the benefits of the massive PR they peddle in the news media. The Notability bar for subjects that have a dedicated Promotion Team is actually higher that one would imagine. I note that all these news articles produced above are covering the exact same WP:ROUTINE news of ban of a movie, a news of ban is always covered as expected. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. --DBig Xrayᗙ 08:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Film banning is not ROUTINE. You have misunderstood NFILM. The sources I pointed out above satisfy WP:NFSOURCES, which is NFILM's main criteria. You are referring to "Other evidence of notability" which is mainly for older films for which we do not have sources online and create presumed notability when we do not have sources. I will further note that the Indian censor is a national film critic and some of the other sources there may be seen as reviews - however as we pass GNG and NFILM by having multiple reliable, independent, and in depth sources - we do not need to evaluate "other evidence" WP:NFO.Icewhiz (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - one of the issues with movies is identifying independent sources due to the PR flap. The coverage of the banning (and the film therein) made identifying independent sources here quite easy - as the banning coverage is independent of the film's PR team.Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Icewhiz's reasoning and citations seem sound to me. Alarichall (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing and Icewhiz's reasoning are persuasive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alarichall, E.M.Gregory reading WP:PERX might be helpful for you. regards --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar. I have also looked at sources brought by Icewhiz, and run searches, and I find Icewhiz'a argument persuasive. Please WP:AGF and try to have a little respect for the work of fellow editors.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep because Wikipedia is not censored. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Harmanprtjhj (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Neither is Wikipedia for advocacy, propaganda, Advertising, marketing or public relations see Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the arguments above, which are certainly convincing. Also appears to have a notable cast. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, having a look at sources provided by Icewhiz above, agree that this meets WP:GNG. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:NF. Do take a look at the films at List of Bollywood films of 2019. If unreleased films can have articles given their notability, this can too. This film did get a theatrical release. Also, meeting only one of the criterion listed at WP:NFO would suffice. I am inclined to think the creator of the article may have a WP:COI though, from the history of their contributions, which seem to be limited to Toofan Singh. 2.51.191.30 (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2019 (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.