Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adil-E-Jahangir

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adil-E-Jahangir

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

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

Film with no remarkable features. KDS4444^Talk 09:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that "no remarkable features" isn't much of a deletion rationale. @MichaelQSchmidt: has very offered some advice to you at User_talk:KDS4444#some_.22sage.22_advice... on how you might do some WP:BEFORE work at WP:INDAFD on looking for reliable sources for India-related articles. May I ask, have you done so in this case? G. P. Sippy was clearly a notable Indian filmmaker. It seems likely to me that this article may meet criterion #1 at Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Other_evidence_of_notability, though there is no evidence of that at present. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, this sort of thing makes me wonder what it is you're here for. I gather it's to delete stuff. Not impressed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I wonder if you would be just as unimpressed if you felt I were here to create multiple articles with no sourcing or evidence of notability... Because you should feel the same about either. I personally believe there are a lot more articles on Wikipedia (generally) than seem warranted, especially those which have mediocre or no referencing. I do not deny this; I am here to improve the project, and some of that improvement means nominating for deletion and encouraging a discussion about those articles which do not seem to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Bringing that up here in this deletion discussion, however, is not relevant to the topic at hand, which is the notability of this particular film. Shawn in Montreal, you and I have already discussed the issue with regard to Soulpepper Theatre, and I conceded without reservation that the subject was in fact notable. Seeing references to support that claim made all the difference. None of that matters here, though I understand why you have brought it up. Let's stick to the business at hand, however. Alright? KDS4444^Talk 19:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten if we had any interaction at the AfD for Soulpepper, which was an incredibly ill-considered Afd, a case where there were ample sources but a complete and utter lack of WP:BEFORE work on the part of the nominator. In this case, Wikipedia:INDAFDKI suggests that a film this old may be unlikely to have any online sources at all. Will it be deleted on that basis? Perhaps.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)\[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: in guideline understanding the some older films might not be sourcable online, WP:OEN offers notability might be found if "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." Being one of G.P. Sippy's first, this might be reasonable consideration. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AND through WP:INDAFD: "Adil-E-Jahangir" "Adil-E-Jehangir" Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw no significant coverage in reliable sources in those two searches. The best one was the passing reference in the The Times of India bio article, which I saw you've added, along with a couple of others. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline allows that in some cases a demand for WP:GNG for older films is unreasonable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, even though nominated contrary to the WP:NPP instructions of WP:NPPCHK and WP:NPPNICE, I think we can keep this brand new stub article as Times of India tells us it was one of the very first films by notable director G.P. Sippy. As clarified at WP:OEN, it can be decided whether or not being one of the very first works of a notable filmmaker qualifies it as notable since "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." Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to keep a note of that WP:OEN essay, because it certainly encapsulates a lot of what I've come to believe. We know that Sippy was a significant figure in Indian cinema. We know that it co-starred Meena Kumari, described as "one of the most prominent actresses to have appeared on the screens of Hindi Cinema" and mentioned in the Golden Age section of Bollywood. It's not at all surprising that online sources to articles are not available. I don't share the nominators sentiment that there are too many articles in Wikipedia per WP:NOTPAPER. I think that Sippy and Kumari were such that we have a reasonably solid basis for believing that WP:OEN does apply. OEN is of course an essay, and one written by Michael - but I think it's a persuasive argument. Not for every film, of course, but I believe for this one. Finally, Wikipedia:PERFECTION is policy. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the film finds mention in a few books as Adl-e-Jehangir (1955). Latest citation of the film is in a recently released book Talat Mahmood -The Velvet Voice published 2015. Have expanded and added refs. Kaayay (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2015 (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.