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 No consensus. Similar discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shani Prabhava. czar  ⨹ 05:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Shrimanthana Magalu

Shrimanthana Magalu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

unsourced article, does not meet WP:MOVIE guidelines Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 15:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 15:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

• No need to send to AFD ten hours after it being contributed. Being unsourced means WP:BEFORE to encourage work, not deletion. This film article is not unsourcable. As this film is one of those of Kannada notable Vishnuvardhan, it certainly had coverage. I would expect Indian members familiar with Kannada language should be able to provide non-english sources, even if only scans of hardcopy sources unavailable online. WP:INDAFD tells us that pre-1990s Indian films are difficult to source online. Not being sourcable online is not automatically non-notable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your comments Schmidt, Even though the article created was unsourced, I did try to find WP:RS before nominating the article for deletion, I was not able to find any, the AfD process gives extra time to find valid sources, unfortunatelly, the citation added is just a one and a half line review and does not establish the needed notability for inclusion. WP:MOVIE shows ways that notability can be established for older films, but in my opinion, it is clear that this film does not meet those guidelines. If reliable sources in any language are found to meet the guidelines for inclusion I will be very happy to change my vote.-- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 23:24, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Seven days? I urge you to read WP:INDAFD before nominating more new stubs about Kannada films after such short waiting period, and understand the difficulty inherent in expecting pre-1990s Indian film articles be improved within a seven-day period. I appreciate your concern with the author giving us only basic information, but such may lead to more with the right eyes. And a major involvement of Kannada notables allows a consideration of notability under WP:OEN. As the film is at least verifiable, we do not have a policy violation... just an issue that requires Kannada eyes. Tagging for issues and perhaps notifying Wikipedia:WikiProject Karnataka might have been reasonable under WP:ATD, WP:WIP, WP:DEADLINE, and WP:UGLY. Not saying you did anything wrong, but WP:JNN is no reason to toss this away over western difficulties in finding non-English sources for non-English pre-internet films. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I have much less experience than you and I am learning every day, so I sincerely thank you for the information you sent me. Let me try to explain to you in more detail why I nominated the films and try to show you that it was not just a frivolous WP:JNN. I do agree with you that WP:Verifiability is not an issue here, especially after the new sources you found which clearly establish it. My only concern is with WP:Notability. The guidelines and recommendations you cited all seem to assume that the content is or is claimed to be notable (even if it is not properly sourced). WP:YFA stresses in point 4 that the subject must be notable, and that it should be sourced, after reading WP:INDAFD, I can understand the difficulty on finding reliable sources, and if there would have been an unsourced claim of notability in the articles, I would have tag them instead of nominating them, but in my opinion there is no such claim.

My assumption here is that a film is not automatically notable for having a notable actor like Vishnuvardhan in its cast, or for been a Kannada film.

Since I could not find substantial coverage to meet WP:GNG I looked at WP:MOVIE

The articles do not make any of the included notability claims, I could see no indication that:

1. it is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
   • Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
   • 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.
   • The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
   • The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.
5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

If I made a mistake in the interpretation of this policies I do apologize, my intention is to help, not hinder the project, so I will thankfully accept any guidance you can give me.-- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 09:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• As for national archives and awards, the jury is still out. I am still looking to verify if "the film was selected for preservation in a national archive" or received "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking"... but that OEN list contains more considerations. There is also "The film features significant involvement (ie. 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," which is a consideration when giving thought to the involvement of the many Indian notables. I find it hard to believe that such films "never" received attention in the Kannada language. So since it had not yet been done, I've asked for assistance in sourcing from WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force, Cinema of Karnataka and WikiProject Karnataka. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Good idea, if it is notable they should be able to show it, and if it so happens that any of those criteria you mention are met then I fully agree with you that it should be kept.-- Crystallizedcarbon ( talk) 21:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

• Keep a suitable stub which has gone from this to THIS. The article is not a policy violation and it serves the project and its readers to have it remain and be improved over time and through regular editing as Kannada editors are able. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:06, 30 November 2014 (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.