Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bandhish
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Sandstein 20:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Bandhish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Non-notable film. Fails WP:NF CultureDrone (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; someone needs to run through a physical encyclopedia of Bollywood film and give cites to all these. But lacking that, we have to use common sense. I don't believe for one second that no sources exist for a film with the likes of Rajesh Khanna (say, Ronald Reagan in Western film) in it, especially one after he was an established actor.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. Not so sure this isn't notable. It appears this might be a misspelling of Bandish. See the Google hits. --Elliskev 18:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Misspelling" might be unfair; if the movie's title is in Hindi, it strikes me that Bandhish is more likely the more precise transliteration to Latin characters. Neither transliteration is "correct", per se.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have said "Alternate spelling". --Elliskev 18:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - given the context, with the big names, seems to be notable. WilyD 18:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep its stubby and unreferenced in its current state, but given the context it is clear that sources do likely exist in its native language, and thus it passes the basic notability test. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SNOWSTRONG keep as I have just added plot, cast, references, external links, and infobox. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. Non-notable movie. Many of the google hits are related to movies with same name, particularly a Pakistani movie of same name, released in same year.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- raven1977 (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, I made a point to be careful just which film by that name I was sourcing when I cleanep up the article. It is also found it under "Bandish", as many times the english translations either add or remove letters. For instance the film Vamsi is also found as Vamshi and Vamsee. This can always cause great confusions. I confirmed by looking at director, producer, and cast. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I think you did it right. The movie existed. But it was not notable enough to have an article in WP. The article was created by a Rajesh Khanna fan, who often adds a lot of fan-like flowery text in Rajesh Khanna page. The article Bandhish does not say anything on why/how this movie is notable.--GDibyendu (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a movie that's been noted with non-trivial references in multiple independent reliable sources. That's all it needs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those are standard reliable sources. If any of them can tell why the movie is notable, why not add in the article? Even an information like 'hit' in the year of release or critically acclaimed (with citations) or awards will do. India makes 1000 movies every year, and many of them will have at least one notable actor/actress in them, does WP need to have an article on all? --GDibyendu (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I had not noticed that Wikipedia has run out of paper, so yes... if a film has distribution and reviews, and is seen by close to a billion people, it can have an article on Wiki... or a thousand such films have a thousand articles. India is not "western" standard film or television, as ProjectIndia and ProjectIndiaCinema will tell you. And finding English sources on a 28-year-old Hindi film was tough. In assumption of good faith, you must allow that Hindi language sources exist and trust that they may one day be included. Not to be sarcastic, but you are welcome to learn Hindi and search for them yourself if good faith is not enough... as it is, I am gratified that I did find English sources... as User:Prosfilaes notes, "independent reliable sources". You will not find a 28-year-old Hindi film being reviewed in the Washington Post or London Times... and to underscore Prosfilaes comment, sources must be considered in the CONTEXT of what is being asserted. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is not in top 25 grossers of 1980 or top 50 grossers of 80s. It is not known yet how else it is notable. I can read/write/speak Hindi too (check my userpage), and as far as my knowledge goes, this movie is not-notable. The article or other sources has not yet disproved that.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If feel the film is not notable, that is your perogative. If wikipedia limited its film articles to only those that were in the top 10 or 50 for any certain year, there'd be a lot fewer articles. Project India or Project India Film might appreciate having thousands less articles to try sourcing, specialy since wiki is so quickly running out of room. Seriously though, and to quote Prosfilaes from up above, it's a movie that's been noted with non-trivial references in multiple independent reliable sources. That's all it needs. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In websites like Chakpak and all, you and me also can add review. So... Not sure about Bigflix, but plot is also copy-paste among the external links which lists it down. None of the external links say a single thing on notability.--GDibyendu (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Per WP:FILM style guidelines: "Plot summaries do not normally require citations; the film itself is the source"... however, it will be an easy matter to make it more consise. I will now do so, if you have not already done it yourself. And since it is not mandated that plot be sourced, I will change the cite to an external link. 2) As several times repeated above, it's a movie that's been noted with non-trivial references in multiple independent reliable sources. That's all it needs. If any one of the sources is a site where viewers may add reviews, and I used the viewer's review rather than the review of the site's editors, please tell me which one and I'll gladly replace it with another. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If feel the film is not notable, that is your perogative. If wikipedia limited its film articles to only those that were in the top 10 or 50 for any certain year, there'd be a lot fewer articles. Project India or Project India Film might appreciate having thousands less articles to try sourcing, specialy since wiki is so quickly running out of room. Seriously though, and to quote Prosfilaes from up above, it's a movie that's been noted with non-trivial references in multiple independent reliable sources. That's all it needs. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is not in top 25 grossers of 1980 or top 50 grossers of 80s. It is not known yet how else it is notable. I can read/write/speak Hindi too (check my userpage), and as far as my knowledge goes, this movie is not-notable. The article or other sources has not yet disproved that.--GDibyendu (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I had not noticed that Wikipedia has run out of paper, so yes... if a film has distribution and reviews, and is seen by close to a billion people, it can have an article on Wiki... or a thousand such films have a thousand articles. India is not "western" standard film or television, as ProjectIndia and ProjectIndiaCinema will tell you. And finding English sources on a 28-year-old Hindi film was tough. In assumption of good faith, you must allow that Hindi language sources exist and trust that they may one day be included. Not to be sarcastic, but you are welcome to learn Hindi and search for them yourself if good faith is not enough... as it is, I am gratified that I did find English sources... as User:Prosfilaes notes, "independent reliable sources". You will not find a 28-year-old Hindi film being reviewed in the Washington Post or London Times... and to underscore Prosfilaes comment, sources must be considered in the CONTEXT of what is being asserted. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those are standard reliable sources. If any of them can tell why the movie is notable, why not add in the article? Even an information like 'hit' in the year of release or critically acclaimed (with citations) or awards will do. India makes 1000 movies every year, and many of them will have at least one notable actor/actress in them, does WP need to have an article on all? --GDibyendu (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a movie that's been noted with non-trivial references in multiple independent reliable sources. That's all it needs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2008 (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.