Talk:Very Filmy

Submit for review
I object to the unilateral move of the article from draft NS to main NS without prior review, and particularly due to the inclusion of sources such as Galaxy Lollywood, BollywoodShaadis, ReviewIt etc, which are regarded as unreliable. I suggest you to follow proper procedure by submitting it for review. — Saqib (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also the assertion that The film received a very positive review in Dawn is inaccurate, as the author is not a Dawn staffer but rather a guest contributor. Moreover, the piece was published in the Comments section of Dawn Images, indicating it does not represent an official review by the publication. — Saqib (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sigh..... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  19:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Donaldd23, @Mushy Yank Not sure this passes GNG, as I don't see any links to reliable sources listed in WP:NPPSG. Some of them are great for verifiability, but not for GNG.  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The controversy (I added a section about it that now happens to be unsourced for reasons that the page history can explain) and the existence of by-lined reviews (one being negative) make it appear notable enough imv. Now, if everyone agrees this should be redirected, feel free (to Momina Duraid, for example). I am absolutely opposed to this being sent back to DRAFT, though. As for Youlin and Fuchsia, I think they might be acceptable for opinion pieces, such as film/series reviews. (The "small consensus" (small indeed) about Fuchsia referred to at NPPSG is based on the RSN board minimalist discussion where one user states:, which does not convince me it can not be used for reviews of works of fiction (//TOI) There's absolutely no consensus on Youlin not being reliable that I am aware of. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  14:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Mushy Yank I wouldn't call those two acceptable for opinion pieces. Youlin accepts guest editors, and Fuchsia has two editors listing it as unreliable (with no opposing arguments). As listed on MOS:FILMCRITICS, the overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources, which is not the case here.  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

You also have for example, https://socialdiary.pk/ramadan-drama-controversy-public-outcry-over-very-filmy-sparks-debate/#:~:text=Critics%20argue%20that%20“Very%20Filmy,Devdas”%20have%20drawn%20considerable%20attention and I'm leaving it at that. Thanks.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  14:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe that one's a little better than the others, but it doesn't even offer its own opinion and just says "critics say", which isn't too helpful. But, I think the other two sources previously discussed should be removed; they are not reliable. All in all, I don't think there is sufficient coverage for a "critics" section, not even mentioning WP:GNG.  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Despite repeated mentions in various AfDs, it seems there's a reluctance to acknowledge the unreliability of all of these sources and this situation somewhat resembles WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I understand that my comment might come across as negative, but it's not my intention to cause further annoyance. However, I've also felt discouraged when my legit concerns I've raised above have been met with responses, such as a "SIGH," instead of addressing the issue with clarification. And for what it's worth, even Social Diary/Sunday Magazine  doesn't REALY meet the criteria of a RS due to its very small editorial team, consisting of only two members. Not sure if it might be suffice for WP:V purposes but it falls short for establishing GNG . — Saqib (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Despite repeated mentions in various AfDs,it seems there's a reluctance to acknowledge the unreliability of all of these sources: if you are talking about me, allow me to sigh again. There's no "reluctance". I happen to have disagreed with your appraisal in various AFDs or articles and I think I clarified why every time I had the time and patience.
 * this situation somewhat resembles WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Yes, maybe, indeed. For example, stating Social Diary/Sunday Magazine doesn't REALY meet the criteria of a RS due to its very small editorial team: that's at least, again, your appraisal and I beg to differ, so if you just REPEAT sometime later "I told you Social Diary is not RS", I will probably still disagree, although I heard you the first time and did tell you, that's all. Same for Youlin, and various sources. You're probably always right and I, always wrong. This time I sighed (or did I SIGH?) because reinstating the template notability and command me to "Submit for review" was not exactly the process and tone I like in discussions (I didn't even check the Dawn/Images part). I have no further comments. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  17:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mushy Yank, I, too, don't have any further comments to add. I may just redirect this or, if necessary, take it to AfD because this clearly fails GNG. And also, I don't see any issue with my tone, as well. — Saqib (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you also feel this meets the GNG? By the way, Fuschia Magazine is not even a RS. There was a brief discussion about it on RSN and also listed at WP:NPPSG. --Saqib (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I feel this passes WP:GNG Donald D23   talk to me  12:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given your usual strict adherence to GNG, I'm unsure what I'm missing here as I find it doesn't meet the GNG  I value your expertise and any insight would be appreciated. --Saqib (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC).