Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bai Chali Sasariye


 * 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. Nja 247 07:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Bai Chali Sasariye

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

Fails to show notability (WP:NOTFILM) and I'm unable to locate any RS.  APK  coffee talk  06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I am sorry to say but if you want, you can delete this. As this movie is in regional language and that also in 1988. So I can't give any online proof to show you that how much importance of this movie in Rajasthan. 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) 10:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One indication of its encyclopaedicity is the fact that it already has an article in another encyclopaedia. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - IMHO, it still doesn't meet the notability guideline. The source you've added is helpful, but "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (emphasis mine) I still can't find a newspaper article discussing the movie, but maybe someone else will have better luck.  APK  coffee talk  14:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? So since Wookiepedia and Conservapedia are "encyclopedias" in the same vein as this one, everything in them is automatically notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, in this case, really. Please place your comments in chronological order and please refrain from constructing plainly silly straw men based upon clearly false premises.  The encyclopaedia referenced is neither Wookipedia nor Conservapedia, nor is it authored in the same manner.  And it is one indication of encyclopaedicity, as I wrote. Uncle G (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that you've decided to throw WP:CIVIL out the window ("silly straw men", "clearly false"), I'll do my best to not to respond to you in the same ignorant manner you used. I will continue to place my responses near the edit I am commenting on. It is logical to do so. As for the avoidance dance that you did while trying to misrepresent what I actually said...you said inclusion in "another encyclopaedia" indicates its encyclopaedicity. I pointed out two examples of encyclopedias that disprove that statement. I'm sorry that you missed the point or that your feelings got hurt when your fallicy was exposed (take your pick as to which one it was). If you have any other gripes or complains about where I place my responses or feel the need to make anymore personal attacks, please move to my talk page and stop littering this dicussion with your grafitti about your opinions about my choice of locations to respond. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. A single mention is a book, "encyclopedia" or not, doesn't sound like "multiple independent sources" to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * An article is not a "mention". You clearly haven't looked to see what is in the encyclopaedia.  (Ironically, the film is mentioned, in other articles in the same encyclopaedia.)  Nor do you give any indication of other instances of looking, including looking for sources yourself, as would be reqiured to underpin an argument that the encyclopaedia article cited was the only source in existence.  Did you make any such effort?  What effort did you make?  What did you look for and what did you find? Uncle G (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The reference itself states that the article on this film is contained on a single page, so I called it a mention. I really don't care if you like my choice of wording or not. Further, other "mentions" (your choice of words, not mine) are irrelevent to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I just want to say that to keep an article in encyclopaedia, do we need a single person's choice or if it follows the required citation, then there is no question for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalit82in (talk • contribs) 09:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as article has enough sourcing to show it as the most successful Rajasthan film in the period from 1990 through 2005. Considering the area is not known for their film industry, I am encouraged to remember WP:CSB and that it does not matter to wikipedia that it might not made splash headlines in the New York Times. Anybody have a copy of the 1988 Rajasthani Gazette, or whatever non-English sources covered their most successful film in 15 years? And has anyone checked the various spelling permutations that occur with translation to English? The article may never be more than a stub, but it's an acceptable and encyclopedic stub. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The movie is one of most successful and popular Rajasthani language films. I have grown up in Rajasthan and can vouch for its popularity and notability. There may not be hundreds of thousands of internet citations because the internet was not in much use then in 1989 and even now in that region. Please read 438 and 446 of Encyclopaedia of Indian cinema By Ashish Rajadhyaksha, Paul Willemen, National Film Archive of India to know more about the film.Shyamsunder (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above plus the fact that the movie created a history in Rajasthan cinema as it ran for 100 days. Salih  ( talk ) 13:04, 11 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.