Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baba Ramdev (movie)


 * 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) 18:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Baba Ramdev (movie)

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

Fails to show notability (WP:NOTFILM) and I'm unable to locate any RS. The user has removed the PROD without providing any references.  APK  coffee talk  07:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

First I have created the article Baba Ramdevji (movie), but later I got that movie name is "Baba Ramdev" and not "Baba Ramdevji". So I created the page Baba Ramdev (movie). then i wanted to delete page Baba Ramdevji (movie), but it was not happening, so I have redirected the page Baba Ramdevji (movie) to Baba Ramdev (movie). As both were created by me only. I think, now there is no problem. 5 July 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalit82in (talk • contribs) 07:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I know, is there still confusion about the article or I have to clear gain the situation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalit82in (talk • contribs) 07:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You still have not added reliable sources to show why the film is notable. If you can find sources which cover the topic, the article has a much better chance of being kept.

 APK  coffee talk  08:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete:Not notable.Even if there are references,it still remains non-notable.See When a film is notable.--Shashankgupta (talk) 12:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NP -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I am sorry to say but if you want, you can delete this. As this movie was base on the folk-deity, it was very popular. As this movie is in regional language and that also in 1963. So I can't give any online proof to show you that how much importance of this movie in Rajasthan. The movie was mad in the growing age of Rajasthani cinema. This movie was boost for the Rajasthani cinema. In my town (population is more than 15000), but you will find internet only in one or two places. That will also opened sometimes to see the exam results or any other purpose. Then how can all information can be availble online. Some can see wikipedia, but here also if like this will happen then what will be the source for the information. I am not doing mis-use of wikipedia.If you want to see the importance then you can come to Rajasthan villages and can ask them if they know about this movie. Still you can see the popularity of songs of this movie. Thanks for your support.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalit82in (talk • contribs) 11:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja 247 10:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable film of its time.The songs of that film are still popular in Rajasthan. Please read page 349 of the book Encyclopaedia of Indian cinema By Ashish Rajadhyaksha, Paul Willemen, National Film Archive of India for more about the film. Shyamsunder (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - fails WP:MOVIE … no WP:RS. Happy Editing! &mdash;  13:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's in Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema, so it's quite obviously notable; the article can be a valid stub until more paper sources are found, quite obviously online sources aren't going to be available for a movie released long ago in another language. - SpacemanSpiff {{{sup| Calvin}} Hobbes 01:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - being "mentioned" is not the same as "has received significant coverage" in reliable sources (note plural), especially considering that Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema is apparently not notable enough to have an article. &mdash; 138.88.7.48 (talk) 12:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It is one of 1450 movies (released on or before 1994) to be featured in the encyclopaedia. In a country that produces over a thousand movies per year, that is remarkable and given that the reference to the paper encyclopaedia has been added, notable. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 17:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep We're talking about the rather sparse Cinema of Rajasthan... an area not known for its film industry, having only produced 88 films in the 62 years from 1942 to 2004, and that Baba Ramdev was among the few Rajasthani films re-released on VCD and DVD 40 years later.. Not being notable to the English-speaking world does not mean it is unsuitable for en.Wikipedia, as I am encouraged to remember that it does not matter to wikipedia that it might not written up in the New York Times or Washington Post when WP:UNKNOWNHERE suggests "Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population", and WP:CSB urges a wider view and acceptance even if something is dificult to source in English. The article may never be more than a stub, but it's an acceptable and encyclopedic stub that shares sourced information about an very early film. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is stated: "...became a big commercial success in its time, being considered a hit for Rajasthani cinema.[3][4] This was a milestone in the history of the Rajasthani movie industry". Based on my (and almost everyone's) knowledge of said industry, that's notable.  Sorry, but just because Roger Ebert never saw it does not mean it's not notable. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:33, 19 July 2009 (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.