Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madhu Malti

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madhu Malti (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)

A stub article that fails to satisfy WP:NFILM. Not a single reference has been cited throughout the body and the article is more or less a mirror of the film's IMDB page. Has also been tagged for improvement for the past year, without any results. Sunshine1191 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sunshine1191 (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete a search found nothing to support this film's notability. Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, changing vote due to newly found/added citations. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: The article is an unreferenced stub, but that is not a reason for deletion. The cast is impressive. Has the nominator searched for sources about मधु मालती or Madhumālatī? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has as one of its principals verifiability. We cannot justify having any unreferenced articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The IMDB link does nothing to establish notability but goes a long way towards verifying the information. Before nominating an article for deletion, an editor should check for sources that would establish notability. Better to improve than delete an article on a notable subject. The question to Sunshine1191 is whether they have searched for sources about मधु मालती or Madhumālatī. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replying to Aymatth2 (talk · contribs) Speaking about notability first... A movie hardly classifies as notable when all its Wiki article includes is the name of the director, original release date and the names of four cast members whose character names haven't even been listed. Secondly, as a matter of fact I have searched the net for reliable sources related to the movie and have turned up with zilch. However, if you feel that the movie is indeed significant, you are more than welcome to further develop and improve the page. Currently though, the article fails the GNG's. Cheers Sunshine1191 (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The notability of a movie has nothing to do with the quality of the Wikipedia article. There could be no article, but the movie could still be notable. Or there could be only a very poor article, as is the case here. The article should only be deleted if the movie itself is clearly not notable. Since this is a Hindi movie, a search limited to English sources is unlikely to be particularly relevant. Again, the question is whether the nominator has searched for sources about मधु मालती or Madhumālatī. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has said they carried out searches. Have you carried out searches? What did you find? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Malcolmxl5: The nominator Sunshine1191 does not say they have searched for any Hindi-language sources, online or offline. If they have only searched online for English sources this AfD is invalid and a waste of time. Given the cast, director etc. it would be very unlikely that the film would not have been discussed in depth by the Hindi-language film magazines of the time, as indeed it was. Johnpacklambert may care to comment. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have access to any offline sources but having studied Hindi for my O-levels I carried out a web search for the film in the form of मधु मालती and मधुमालती and not a single match has come up. Given the age of the movie, finding in-depth coverage in secendary sources is highly unlikely. Not commenting on the notability of the film itself, but the Wikipedia article in its current state is basically a mirror of the film's IMDB page and what's the point in having a mirror here when the original is present at IMDB. TheRedDomitor (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheRedDomitor: The stars are well known by many of our older readers. An editor with a stash of back numbers of Filmfare or Stardust might decide to use the reviews to create or pump up the articles on films these actors starred in. If they get the red wall of death on a creation attempt, they will be discouraged. That will not help our readers, who may want to know more about these notable films. The only reason to delete an article is that the subject clearly is not notable. That is highly unlikely in this case. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Aymatth2: I don't want to sound condescending here because I actually think that the point you have put forward is quite valid. At the same time however, it makes me wonder that for an article that has remained undeveloped since it's creation more than a decade ago, what is the realistic probability of someone coming in and improving the article in the future. What does the creator of this article Encyclopædius have to say about this? TheRedDomitor (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: It is my understanding that, and Malcolmxl5 pls correct me if i'm wrong here, as long as a title isn't salted, recreation of a previously deleted article is very much possible so long as the editor understands why the previous article was deleted and the new article is able to conform to the Wiki guidelines. TheRedDomitor (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheRedDomitor Things have moved on a bit, I see, since I was here last but I’ll quickly answer this. There would no bar to recreation though issues identified in a deletion discussion would need to be addressed. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If an editor sees a film stub and has access to a relevant film review, they may well click [edit] and add a summary of the review to the article, which is easy. If there is no article, they less likely to start a new article and add the information, which is harder. But if the article has previously been deleted, it takes an editor with very strong nerves to recreate the article. When they go to start it they see something like:

They are, of course, recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page. Most editors would stop right there. Mainstream films are always noted at time of release, and the reviews are unlikely to have completely disappeared. Far better to fix up the stub as far as possible, as Shshshsh has done with this one, and hope more content will be added later. Deletion is a blunt instrument that should be used only when an article is harmful or the subject clearly cannot be notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: I don’t disagree what what you say but in my experience, such arguments carry little weight in deletion discussions. Far better to find sources (as others have been doing), just two good quality ones - reliable, independent, in-depth - will do. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia is built on verifiability. Unless you present an actual Hindi source that is a reliable source showing coverage we have no reason to show deference to your claim that such sources exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I, on the other hand, do think that films are notable, especially films by renowned directors, and Bhattacharya is one. One of the biggest problems with Hindi films, particularly of that era, is the lack of coverage available online, but let's see, I've started looking for some references, maybe it could be kept eventually. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Johnpacklambert and keeping all the points stated above in mind, I cast my vote as Delete. The creator of this article has been active on Wiki since being asked to share their thoughts on the matter but has chosen not to do so, indicating that they are maintaining a neutral opinion regarding the deletion. The article in its current state is an IMDB stub and no sources have been found online in Hindi or English to back-up the article's contents. In the future if someone truly passionate about the film or the actors in it chooses to recreate the article with old reliable sources then praise but a futuristic possibility isn't a strong enough reason to currently keep the article. TheRedDomitor (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a mainstream Bollywood film with a well-known director and cast. There are various websites that give technical details, synopsis of the plot, lyrics etc., so the content is verifiable. There can be no doubt that the film would have been reviewed in all the main magazines at the time, but the film is in the dead zone between the "classic" and "internet" eras, so we cannot see these reviews online. A film buff with access to the offline sources may well choose to pump up the article. Meanwhile, it has some use in its rudimentary state. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Okay, I did my best to expand the article. Its verifiability has improved, I believe. I invite those who have voted to delete it to have a look and reconsider their stand. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by my nomination. Even with the new edits the page is still a stub record of the various technical specs regarding the movie which has already been done by IMDB, with all the technical details, pictures of scenes, cast names, the works. What makes Wiki different is the in-depth coverage of the various aspects in making a notable movie: timelines in production, character descriptions, critical reception, box office performance, distribution etc, all of which is still missing from the article. But hey, this is just my point of view. Sunshine1191 (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, more sources have been found and added now. Second, you're wrong about IMDb - none of the information I've added appears on IMDB - the film's entry is very poor there. Third, if we were to follow your logic that film articles without information on "timelines in production, character descriptions, critical reception, box office performance, distribution" do not deserve a Wiki article, then the great majority of Indian films except for very few up to 2000 would not deserve a Wikipedia article, because sadly, no such information is available online for the most part. Similarly, a great majority of articles on films in general would not justify a Wikipedia article. I thus disagree with this sentiment, and I find it to be a misinterpretation (no offence intended) of the notability guideline. I believe in the importance of verifiability of course, and as you see, it has been achieved considerably now. What makes Wikipedia special, in my opinion, is the opportunity to gather information from all sources available and the potential it creates for further improvement and addition of information. Personally I think deleting film articles is really against the spirit of Wikipedia. I think that all films the existence of which is not doubted, particularly those made by notable directors, starring notable actors, and having even minimal online coverage, merit a Wikipedia article. Shahid • ^Talk2me 14:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More work done since my last update. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They deleted Kahin Aar Kahin Paar the other day with the same rationale, "not an imdb mirror, lacks RS".† Encyclopædius 16:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Thanks to the effort of Shahid, clearly meets notability guidelines.† Encyclopædius 14:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've been doing some searches using the title and the variants suggested + Sachin + Sarika. I find some snippets: in Screen World Publication's 75 Glorious Years of Indian Cinema (1988), Indian Film (1979) though I can’t judge the depth of the coverage. I’m aware though that Google does not index Indian topics very well. WikiProject India use to have custom searches specifically to deal with this problem but I can’t seem to find them. Are they still available? --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. Shshshsh has added a vast number of sources, including several film encyclopedias. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article has been improved with the addition of references to multiple reliable sources coverage so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets the GNG; AfD is not clean up. --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Newly found sources establish notability. --Ab207 (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2020 (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.