- 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. Leniency is given to Indian subjects as compared to the UK sourcing in India is pretty poor, I've found a few sources by searching "Borosi Prodyut" so I'd say notability is there. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Borosi
- Borosi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of article does not appear to be notable per WP:GNG. Would have nominated this under CSD but there is no category for "unremarkable movies". KDS4444 Talk 14:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- There's no speedy category because CSD rarely applies to films that true diligence finds covered in multiple sources, even if not currently used... and no sourcable topic ever HAS to say "I am important because" (chuckle). And as for same reason at AFD, an unfounded claim of "unremarkable movie" is opinion and not a deletion rationale. That's not the way its supposed to work here, thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. I can find no references to demonstrate the notability required to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. /wia /tlk 20:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- year:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- director:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- producer:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- story:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- screenwriter:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- cast:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- cast:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- cast:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- WP:INDAFD: Borosi "Prodyut Kumar Deka" "Debashish Goswami" "Dinesh Goswami" "Pabitra Kumar Deka" "Taufique Rahman" "Jowan Dutta" "Madhusmita Borkotoki"
- Keep as a released film which meets WP:NF through available coverage even if unused. To KDS4444 and Wikiisawesome... Google News does not crawl and index Indian newspaper articles properly, so please give the tools at WP:INDAFD a decent chance with expanded-related searches before simply declaring an improvable film topic as "non-notable" simply because it is poorly written or unsourced. Will add some sources later. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't the time for adding sources usually before the article gets posted to the mainspace? or perhaps during the deletion discussion? A promise to take care of it in the future isn't terribly helpful where we are standing right now, which is on a ledge looking at an article with no references and no claim of notability, which is an old theme and the moss is growing on our toes.
KDS4444
Talk 10:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, you can go ahead and add some just as WP:NPP suggests... that would be great. Unlike some, I actually have a life away from Wikipedia, and WP:IMPROVE what I can as quickly as I can (you've been keeping be busy). Apparently it is a lot easier to ignore WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:BEFORE and WP:NPOSSIBLE and send improvable topics to AFD and expect that others do the work (chuckle), but advice elsewhere is quite helpful in building an encyclopedia: WP:WIP, WP:IMPATIENT, WP:DEADLINE, & WP:SEP. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't the time for adding sources usually before the article gets posted to the mainspace? or perhaps during the deletion discussion? A promise to take care of it in the future isn't terribly helpful where we are standing right now, which is on a ledge looking at an article with no references and no claim of notability, which is an old theme and the moss is growing on our toes.
KDS4444
Talk 10:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 12:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 12:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Leniency is given to Indian subjects as compared to the UK sourcing in India is pretty poor, I've found a few sources by searching "Borosi Prodyut" so I'd say notability is there. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 00:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Borosi
- Borosi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of article does not appear to be notable per WP:GNG. Would have nominated this under CSD but there is no category for "unremarkable movies". KDS4444 Talk 14:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- There's no speedy category because CSD rarely applies to films that true diligence finds covered in multiple sources, even if not currently used... and no sourcable topic ever HAS to say "I am important because" (chuckle). And as for same reason at AFD, an unfounded claim of "unremarkable movie" is opinion and not a deletion rationale. That's not the way its supposed to work here, thanks. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. I can find no references to demonstrate the notability required to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. /wia /tlk 20:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
- year:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- director:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- producer:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- story:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- screenwriter:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- cast:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- cast:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- cast:(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- WP:INDAFD: Borosi "Prodyut Kumar Deka" "Debashish Goswami" "Dinesh Goswami" "Pabitra Kumar Deka" "Taufique Rahman" "Jowan Dutta" "Madhusmita Borkotoki"
- Keep as a released film which meets WP:NF through available coverage even if unused. To KDS4444 and Wikiisawesome... Google News does not crawl and index Indian newspaper articles properly, so please give the tools at WP:INDAFD a decent chance with expanded-related searches before simply declaring an improvable film topic as "non-notable" simply because it is poorly written or unsourced. Will add some sources later. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't the time for adding sources usually before the article gets posted to the mainspace? or perhaps during the deletion discussion? A promise to take care of it in the future isn't terribly helpful where we are standing right now, which is on a ledge looking at an article with no references and no claim of notability, which is an old theme and the moss is growing on our toes.
KDS4444
Talk 10:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, you can go ahead and add some just as WP:NPP suggests... that would be great. Unlike some, I actually have a life away from Wikipedia, and WP:IMPROVE what I can as quickly as I can (you've been keeping be busy). Apparently it is a lot easier to ignore WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:BEFORE and WP:NPOSSIBLE and send improvable topics to AFD and expect that others do the work (chuckle), but advice elsewhere is quite helpful in building an encyclopedia: WP:WIP, WP:IMPATIENT, WP:DEADLINE, & WP:SEP. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't the time for adding sources usually before the article gets posted to the mainspace? or perhaps during the deletion discussion? A promise to take care of it in the future isn't terribly helpful where we are standing right now, which is on a ledge looking at an article with no references and no claim of notability, which is an old theme and the moss is growing on our toes.
KDS4444
Talk 10:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 12:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor Talk! 12:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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.