Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7½ Phere

7½ Phere

7½ Phere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relevance and notability of a non-English-language movie not shown outside of India on the English Wikipedia. No sources - much less primarily English-language sources - have been cited for why it is notable other than existing as a movie production, nor demonstrating notability to people who live outside of India: a link to the IMDB entry does not suffice. For that matter, the movie didn't even review well in the first place within India, leading one to question even further why this film is considered notable enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia: Wikipedia is not the IMDB, and the IMDB exists for exactly the purpose of cataloging movies and TV regardless of notability or origin. A quick search reveals precisely zero coverage by reliable (much less themselves notable) 3rd-party sources or coverage of any note/value in the English language aside from a short synopsis in the Hindustan times which is of no encyclopedic value, and does not confer, imply or describe any notability.

((Addressed to the article author/maintainer: Simply being made as a movie is NOT inherent notability: the Wikipedia is not, I repeat ***NOT*** the IMDB. See WP:NOTFILM, and you will find this movie does not appear to fulfill the basic criteria for establishing notability regarding films.)) besieged^talk 01:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 01:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 02:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep Snow Nominator doesn't the know basics.

1. Being the English Wikipedia means what is written on Wikipedia should be in English, not the subjects or references. Wish it were true, then there wouldn't be so much Kpop, Jpop, Anime and footballers.
2. English is one of the two national languages of India. India contains the 2nd largest group of English speakers of any nation, just after the US.
3. Doesn't matter where any film is made or shown as long as there are references in any language to support GNG
4. There are enough English references to show that it meets GNG. This doesn't even count the Hindi sources. Bgwhite (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep -It appears to me that WP:BEFORE was not performed in this particular case. Wikipedia's general notability guideline requires, "significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources" not that sources about a subject must exists in places other the origin of subject. Sources provided above by Bgwhile, clearly establish notability of the film per WP:NF and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Keep – This article and what is about have enough notability and relevance, it's so unfortunate that such a notability evaluation has done. Please remove deletion notice from the article immediately, otherwise readers might think they are reading on Uncyclopedia.
  (harith (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

• Clarification ::I believe I should clarify here that I am not asserting that a lack of English-language coverage makes this film non-notable, but rather that the film simply fails notability on ANY grounds, and that the existence of coverage in English would be a strong argument for this movie being notable. However, there is absolutely nothing about this film that passes the standard guidelines of notability in any way besides the simple fact that it exists, which is not a valid reason. Otherwise we'd be cataloging every movie ever made on this wiki, which is patently not happening, and not policy: as above, that's what the IMDB is for.

I have no desire to debate the "English in India" topic: * Keep – This article and what is about have enough notability and relevance, it's not the actual issue here, nor why the article was nominated. In fact, as you point out, if English is India's official second language, then there SHOULD be coverage in English of this film IF it were, in fact, notable, yet there is nothing of any value besides a short synopsis in the Hindustan times which itself does nothing to confer notability per WP:MOVIE, nor anything else readily available detailing why this film is of any more note than any other generic romantic comedy movie which has received no awards of note nor made any technical or cinematographic accomplishments, breakthrough's etc., that would qualify it for an article on this site. It isso unfortunate that such a notability evaluation has done. Please remove deletion notice from the article immediately, otherwise just one of thousands of generic low-grade films that could be made anywhere in the world and still not be notable precisely because it is so generic.

• The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
• The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

1. Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
2. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[2]
3. The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
4. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

• The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[3]
• The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[4]
• The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Also,

• The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" (See The Adventure of Sudsakorn)[5]
• The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.

An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.

• The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited.[6]

As far as I can tell, it does not pass notability on any of these grounds, though I am, of course, unable to read Indian-language articles to determine if it has received two or more "full-length reviews" by nationally known critics, or even of determining if a critic is in fact nationally known in India; therefore, I believe it is reasonable to say that unless/until someone can specifically cite (with references) which of the above grounds applies this film does not pass the notability test, regardless of whether some people have latched on to and taken offense from misreading my comments and presuming I have some sort of pro-English/anti-Indian bias/bigotry, which is absolutely not the case. As above, I brought up English only because it would lend weight to notability claims, not because I believe only English sources are valid. Simply having a synopsis blurb a paragraph long on a website doesn't satisfy the above requirements per WP:MOVIE. besieged^talk 18:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)