Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bomma Borusa


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  09:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Bomma Borusa

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

Delete nn film, fails WP:NOTFILM Mayalld (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per nom. --  O liver  T wisted (Talk) 13:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * What is expected from the article? Its a 1971 Telugu language film stub and its created half an hour ago and I am working on related articles. By this article being nominated for deletion, I am assuming that either you guys have more informatin on this article or I am adding vandalism into my articles for it is being nomiated for deletion. Bharathprime (talk) 13:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment' Verifiable Reliable Sources is what is needed. Nobody is accusing you of vandalism. What is being said is that there is a Notability hurdle to pass for an article to be retained. You need to show that the film passes the hurdle. If sources are hard to find, you need to find the sources FIRST, rather than expecting the article to sit around waiting for sources to be found. Mayalld (talk) 14:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Citations and references have been added to the article. Please let me know, if additional data is required. Thanks for your time. Bharathprime (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Reliable Sources are required. Sourcing from IMDB and similar sites just doesn't count (indeed WP:NOTFILM is explicit that inclusion in IMDB doesn't confer notability. SOrry, but this looks like a quantity over quality attempt to make the article look notable by adding lots of sources that don't actually count Mayalld (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree partially to your comment. I believe one citation for each reference is enough as long as all the data included can be verified (and the citations are not blogs, which are not considered reliable source of info). Initially that is what the article contained (citations for all data included to be verified and not disputed). "Do we have enough data?" is another question and so is rightly categorized as stub. Additional citations were included only on the initiation of this discussion, to prove that such a film exist. If these sources are not reliable then I can argue that almost all Indian film articles do not have reliable sources of reference.
 * Referring to IMDb, it is the only source with respectable count of Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, Hindi,.... movies listed in it. Other sources which english movies use like Metacritic, All Movie, Box Office Mojo, TCM, Rotten Tomatoes is of no use.
 * I am against deleting this article. Wikipedia now has all the information available on the net about this film. This would be a good start and would save hours of work for somebody else like me who would initially spend hours collating existing data. Based on this, contributors can expand, and might add additional info, which is currently not available to common users. Bharathprime (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment So, the sum total of your opinion is that because there are no sources available other than IMDB, and similar sites, we should just toss the long-standing convention that being mentioned in IMDB isn't enough out of the window, because you say so? Nobody doubts that the film exists. The critical point is that unless it gets mentioned more widely than IMDB, it simply isn't notable. Mayalld (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am asking the subject to be analyzed with logic. When dealing with a different category of films it is important not to paint everything with the same brush. It is not wise to search for Telugu films in the sites mentioned before which mainly cover english films. Bharathprime(talk) 06:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as a new article still undergoing improvement. Has a number of Telugu notables. Informations to expand and source the article are quite likley available. Noming when it was 30 minutes old seems a bit harsh. WP:AfD is not the shortcut to WP:Cleanup.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The age of the article isn't really relevant. There is no evidence whatsoever that the film is notable, and leaving it for a couple of weeks wouldn't change that. Mayalld (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * With respects, there is no WP:DEADLINE to improve an article. While you are entitled to your opinion that this Telug film article cannot and will not ever be improved, that opinion is not supported by guideline or policy, and your rushing it AFD within minutes of its creation has a slight feeling of WP:UGH, though I hope I am wrong.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are correct. There is no deadline. However, that doesn't mean that we allow every nn film weeks of lattitude before deletion. Mayalld (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Please check if this is a reliable source or not. Bharathprime (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a usable per WP:V to confirm the film's existance. But simply being listed does not show a notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No. Film directories, which include all films regardless of merit are never reliable sources to establish notability. Mayalld (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Do you have any sugessions for improving notability of this film? How can I make this article stay? Bharathprime (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability isn't something that you can do anything about. If the film isn't notable, it isn't notable. There isn't some magic wand that you can wave to get your favourite article included. Mayalld (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I just completed some cleanup and sourcing per film MOS. However, I will not judge this 37-year-old film by an award-winning K. Balachander as non-notable simply because I cannot read Telugu and am unable to discern the content of the non-English sources. That it was made by a man who has won numerous awards, and has numerous Telugu notables in it would seem to indicate in assuming good faith that the sources are out there... just not in English. Cultural bias is a tough trap to fall into... so I won't.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, cultural bias is to be avoided. So is playing the cultural bias card every time anybody proposes that a non-notable film that isn't in English is deleted. Mayalld (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? Is the film non-notable because the notable writer/director has won multiple awards? Or is it non-notable because the cast is full of notable Telugu actors? Is it non-notable only because finding English coverage for a 37-year-old Telugu film would be difficult? In considering the notable director and the notable actors, doesn't WP:AGF allow you to believe that the non-English sources exist? Or does WP:DEADLINE demand they be brought forth immediately? The fact that it was nominated even as its author was still writing it, seems just a tad harsh.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly, you believe that notability is inherited, whilst I believe (and policy states) that it is not. If you believe that WP:AGF is some kind of "get out of jail free" card that trumps WP:N and WP:V, and allows any article to be retained, even if it cannot prove notability, merely by claiming that this article is difficult to source properly, then there is little point in dicussion. Mayalld (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Gratified that WP:AGF allows you to read my mind. How many fingers am I holding up now? Well... and despite your telepathic abilities, I do not believe notability is inherited, and am saddened that that is all you were able to discern from my response. Am also saddened that you seem to interpret WP:AGF in a manner that benefits only yours and no other's opinions. Conversely, you now underscore my own concern in your belief that because the article is difficult to source then it ipso-facto non-notable. I note that each guideline begins with the caveat that they should be "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." I am voicing my belief that because of the notable and award-winning director who created the project AND and because of the number of Telugu notables involved in the project,  that non-English sources are likely to exist. I am not saying that their being notable makes the project also notable, only that because of their participation, non-English sources quite likely exist. Further, the involvement of these notables allows me the presumption that 37 years ago (PRE-INTERNET / PRE-WIKIPEDIA) there were likely innumerable Telugu reliable HARDCOPY sources speaking toward notability. That these hardcopy sources have not found themselves in English film or news archives does not mean they did not then exist. Since notability is not temporary, I will accept an aged notability as having then existed. WP:NF does not mandate the sources be used... only that a logical presumption of their existance be made. Allowing a little leeway for a Telegu film because of the lack of English sources is "common sense" and is the "occasional exception" to which guidelines refer. I do not expect you to agree in the slightest. I fully expect you to once again attack my reasoning. That incivility is yours and not mine. Thank you and Merry Christmas.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Well, Telugu-language films are not my area of expertise, but the article has references and the film has plenty of notable artists attached to it. I see no harm in trying to grow the article rather than cutting it down so quickly. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep What Eco said. There is enough going for it (director, cast, some refs) to be given a chance. Any existing refs that satisfy notability would be in print and the editor(s) ought to be given time to seek them out - access to university/media libraries probably not being feasible until after the new year... Plutonium27 (talk) 19:31, 27 December 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.