Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ha Khel Sawalyancha

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. Thanks for the great lengths some editors went to track down and check sources. But the source analysis is not successfully rebutted. If an editor wants to create a Redirect from this page title, feel free to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Khel Sawalyancha

[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)

Cannot locate sources to show notability. There are a few mentions but nothing that amount to significant coverage. CNMall41 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: because this is a 1976 film and cast, music director and director are all notable and it contributes to the notability of the film. Or redirect to Vasant Joglekar. Very opposed to deletion of the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have seen many notable actors act films that aren't notable. So, citing the notable casts of the film is good but not when there aren't sources even to verify that they acted the film. This is eventually not part of WP:NFIC#2. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is: The cast+the director+the music director are notable, and it is a 1976 film, therefore (perhaps non-English) off-line contemporary sources might (or more likely, probably) exist (see below). I also indicate an ATD, fwiw. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am bit confused, You added a SourcesExist template yourself, was it by mistake? And sources have been added since nomination, some allowing partial verification of the cast (or simply look at the poster if you wish), some looking reliable but not allowing it so far. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor and unreliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:SIGCOV. RangersRus (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis.
- Source 1 is unreliable source and the listing is copied from imdb with reference to imdb. No significant coverage on the film.
- Source 2 is same listing of cast, director, producer, musicians. No significant coverage.
- Source 3 is a link to a song on YouTube video. Nothing significant here either.

I looked for sources online to get significant coverage and WP:NFILM but after 4 pages of search, I could not find any secondary independent reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I referenced two sources in Award section and noted a film in several Marathi books such as -.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Morekar (talk • contribs)
@User:Morekar, the books you provided here aren't verifiable. Please read WP:OFFLINESOURCES and provide the full bibliographical details, most importantly, the page numbers. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done.@SafariScribe Allows to verify the film was a great success according to sources (not to mention the cast, plot, themes, etc). Thank you for your concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note. None of the new sources with Google books links are verifiable. All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation with page number(s) to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. RangersRus (talk) 10:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I hate redirects being turned up after redirecting and I would prefer deletion to an obviously non notable article. While we try to save an article as much as possible per WP:ATD, we should be careful to avoid leaving non notable ones as redirects (my opinion). This article, to all eyes, doesn't meet WP:NFILM and if the casts are notable, then there should be a bit, atleast, WP:SIGCOV. Bearing the lack of SIGCOV in mind, I would be ready to redirect to the director's article (who also clearly doesn't meet WP:NDIRECTOR) if reliable sources that could be used to verify the cast and crew of the film are provided. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are imv sources on the page to verify partially the cast and crew. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All the changes have been reviewed and analyzed in my last note. RangersRus (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them, indeed, the Gbooks refs, are mentioned as a whole in your general note ("reviewed and analysed" is a bit of an overstatement, I’m afraid, as yourself stated you couldn’t access them, :D); but still, the page has significantly changed. Also see WP: Systemic bias, thank you very much. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprised by your response. As i said earlier the so called "significant changes", the Google books fail verification with no page number and inline citation and that is my review and analysis about it if you could pay attention. See WP:V. RangersRus (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t mean to surprise you but I did pay attention, thank you; that is precisely why I think that calling your note a ’review and analysis’ of those sources is a tiny bit misleading. You just couldn’t access and verify them. It would be better indeed if we could, but again see the link that I provided above. The changes are significant, maybe not satisfactory, I agree, because we cannot check the full text, but significant, they are, and stating otherwise is also rather a little misleading. People who have visited the page before nomination can check it now and see if they can verify the added sources, for example or if they find them useful; hence my insertion of the template, which your comment tries to undermine unduly, in my view. If so-called should apply to something it is not to the 'significant changes', I should say. Consider this my final reply to you as I do not care very much for the tone of your last reply, to be honest. Thank you again for your reply and concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but it is no help and thank you for your final reply. Nothing significant as expected. RangersRus (talk) 21:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: a rapid check allowed me to verify 3 of the sources added through Gbooks (I added the page for 2 ). I see now even less reasons to doubt the veracity of the sources added by Morekar. I thought there might have been a transcription problem but no, the title in most of the cited English sources apparently corresponds to the title of the article. I’ll do my best to add the pages of other sources cited, though, as this might be helpful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC) (I have added the pages to all of the significant references added by Morekar, that should now be considered verifiable and verified :D; I will not re-add the AfD changed template, though :D; )[reply]

How are these "significant references" again? Verifiability is not notability unfortunately. Are you able to show what RangerRus is requesting below? I am willing to withdraw the nomination if it turns out t be significant coverage but I cannot locate anything either. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took time and verified all the pages on each Google sources on the page and the claims it made (even though the onus is on the editor who adds the source to provide verification), there is nothing significant. No significant coverage in any source and even the source under reception is not even a review but just a passing mention. RangersRus (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was making that assumption based on no replies from previous requests as well. Thanks for taking the time. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Morekar: Can you please provide page numbers along with inline citation of what the sources actually say to check if it is just an entry or something significant. We need significant coverage and I googled but just found entries and nothing significant. If you can provide all the information that helps with the content for verification, it will help. RangersRus (talk) 21:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to verify all the sources you added and as expected nothing significant to pass WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD participants are invited, by the template inserted above in the discussion, to read the page and not simply assume or assert the changes are not significant and the sources add no weight to notability. A single source, for example, stating the film was a ’superhit’ (source wording) is significant per se. And denying it is at best bizarre.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a 'super hit' does not make something notable. It must be shown so through significant coverage. What is "bizarre" is that two editors have asked for the excerpts of those references that some are citing as significant yet nothing has been provided except assertions.--CNMall41 (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of whether the available sources provide significant coverage would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Source analysis.
- Source 1 Google snippet page 161, has an entry with film name, language of the film, color, length, name of director, producer, musician, and four cast members followed with "Woman fears servants ghost haunts bungalow." That's it. No significant coverage.
- Source 2, Google Snippet page 130 has an entry with translation of the film title. No significant coverage.
- Source 3, Google snippet page 22, has an entry, "crime thrillers (title of three different films, one of which is the subject)". No significant coverage.
- Source 4, Google Snippet page 139 is by a filmmaker and scriptwriter of same industry and very likely a self published through "Maharashtra Film, Stage & Cultural Development Corporation" who are also the contributor, has passing mention "Ha Khel Savlyancha ( 1976 ) , a suspense thriller interwoven with a supernatural legend , be- came a superhit but could not wean the indus- try away from its famnily melodramas ." (That is exactly how family is misspelled). Keeping the unreliability question aside, still no significant coverage.
- Source 5 Unreliable sources that is a blog indiancine.ma and the listing is copied from imdb with reference to imdb. No significant coverage on the film.
- Source 6 is same listing of cast, director, producer, musicians. No significant coverage.
- Source 7 passing mention of film critically and commercially acclaimed and one of the actor Jairam played memorable role in highest grossing film of the time. Not significant coverage on the film.
- Source 8 is link to YouTube video of a song. No coverage at all.
- Source 9, 10 are same books with Google snippet page 40, reads Best Music Director and best color photography for the film (does not mention awarded by who or what award show). No significant coverage anyhow.
- Source 11 and 13 are snippets from same book with no page numbers. One snippet with entry of DVD release in 2009 and the other snippet in few words that the film "deeply rooted in the village life of Maharashtra". No significant coverage.
- Source 12 is about one of the song from the film remade for modern audiences. Nothing significant again.

Entries, trivial and passing mention only and no source addresses the topic directly and in detail. RangersRus (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great analysis which just reaffirms (for me) that it exists, but verification is not notability. Thanks for doing the digging. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General note: There is a generally accepted working consensus regarding released films with notable cast and/or made by a notable director (and/or including the participation of notable personalities (musicians, writers, etc). The said consensus is that such articles are redirected to a list of films by year/country or to the article about their director when they can, if reliable sources allow verification. When such films are mentioned as critical and/or commercial successes especially pre-internet films, and, again, given coverage allows verification, their cultural and historical significance is generally considered a sufficient reason to retain a standalone page. Either way, the consensus is that such pages are generally not deleted.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is not an issue but "not deleted" is not the same thing as "keep." WP:NFO says reiterates what you say but means that sources are "likely to exists" showing notability. Unfortunately, those sources do not exist here.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 26 September 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.