Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aanchal (1980 film)


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Aanchal (1980 film)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Non-notable film, fails WP:NF CultureDrone (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The actors in this film are all apparently notable, since they have their own articles, and Google turns up plenty of hits for lyrics to the movie's songs, so it's apparently known well enough. If it lacks cites to published film reviews as required by WP:NF, it's almost certainly because the movie's in Hindi, and the editors of this encyclopedia are overwhelmingly dependent on English. Keep it and let those interested in it make it better. Fumoses (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Whilst I appreciate the difficulty, I don't see why WP guidelines should be ignored simply because the movie is in Hindi - surely, all movie articles should meet the same basic criteria, regardless of language ? Why does it being a non-English film mean that there are no suitable references and that it should be included regardless, whilst an English language film that provided no such references would likely be deleted ? Yes, the majority of editors here are dependent on English - this is, after all, the English wikipedia. Whilst this film may be notable due to the actors in it, I'd dispute the inference that every non-English film should be included. CultureDrone (talk) 16:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not that the guidelines should be ignored simply because the movie's in Hindi; it's that the movie appears to be notable based on criteria that aren't present in the guidelines, and that the guidelines don't anticipate because the guidelines were written from an English-language viewpoint. Wikipedia contains many, many articles on non-English films, although these films tend to be overwhelmingly European in origin. Films in Hindi are starting to attract more attention from English speaking audiences as more and more English-speaking filmgoers become aware of Indian culture, and in the meantime I think it's good to have articles on notable Hindi films. Sometimes we have to correct for cultural bias here, which is why the guidelines are meant to be guidelines, rather than rigid rules. Fumoses (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfectly true, and if an article is notable, then it should be included whatever language it is. However, that doesn't mean that notability and sourcing guidelines can be ignored whenever it's convenient to do so - notwithstanding WP:BOLD. If the guidelines are incomplete, then an attempt should be made to reach consensus on changing them - not just ignoring them CultureDrone (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the article is in need of clean up and additional sourcing, but this can be fixed once somebody decides to add the sources. There is no need for English language sources, sources in the original Hindi probably exist, given that this appears to be a wide-release film in India, and was likely to have gotten lots of press.  Its true that the language of the article needs some real work, and the article is itself a stub, but neither of these factors call for a deletion.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as notability exists. Will do a bit of sourcing myself. And to the nom, as soon as i find it, I will include the link to the part of guideline that allows leniency for sourcing Indian films. Its there. I have read it. Now to find it again.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Found enough english language sources and fixed the article.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep based on the sources found by Schmidt. Edward321 (talk) 23:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as updated by MQSchmidt. SkierRMH  ( talk ) 18:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.