Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depth of Pyaar


 * 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 delete. czar 02:27, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Depth of Pyaar

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Semi-advertorialized article about a film, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The attempted notability claim here is an extremely long and almost entirely unreferenced table of 49 award nominations at minor film festivals whose awards aren't instant notability freebies in the absence of any quality sourcing about the film -- and even the just two entries in that list which are footnoted are still not actually citing sources that verify the claimed awards, but rather are citing the self-published film festival catalogues of different festivals than the ones that purportedly presented the footnoted awards: an award from the Idyllwild International Festival of Cinema is cited to the website of something called "Asian Film Festival", and an award from the Cyprus International Film Festival is cited to the website of something called "Queens World Film Festival". But film awards only count as notability clinchers for a film if the award in question gets covered by the media, and not if you have to rely on film festivals' own self-published websites to source the claim because media coverage is nonexistent. And the rest of the sourcing isn't any better, depending almost entirely on more film festival catalogues and other primary sources (IMDb, etc.) that aren't support for notability, with only a single film review in Film Threat constituting a reliable or notability-supporting source at all. (The only other "review" here is from a podcast that explicitly advertises itself as a "send us your film and we'll review it" platform for filmmakers to solicit coverage themselves, and thus isn't a reliable or notability-making source of film reviews, which have to come from established film critics in real media outlets to count as notability builders.) Absolutely nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt a film from having to have a lot more than just one film review in a real reliable publication. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 *  Weak delete - It is strange to find (essentially) no reviews while the film won some 50 awards. I found a few "blogpost" reviews like this [], this one [amer icanr eporter.com/mukesh-asopas-most-recent-film-the-depth-of-pyaar-now-streaming-on-amazon-prime/], and one mentioned above, but that is pretty much it. IMDB only provides a few hundreds user reviews, just for a reference....Kolma8 (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, there's this whole phantom circuit out there of fake "film festivals" that don't really screen films for the public at all, but instead exist only as "award mills": submit your film title and a processing fee, and we'll automatically give you an "award" so that you can stick the phrase "award-winning" in your marketing bumf. That's one of the reasons why we require independent evidence of the film festival awards getting reported as news in real media: because not all film festival "awards" that filmmakers claim to have won are necessarily always real awards from real film festivals in the first place. But also, the article doesn't actually say at all whether the film won all of these awards, or was just nominated for all of these awards — and even "nominated for film festival award" still carries a high risk of being advertorialized garbage, because even at real film festivals there aren't always true "nominees" for the awards, which may instead simply adjudicate all of the films that meet the relevant criteria for the award equally without releasing any special "shortlist" of nominees — so again, a reason why we need real sources, and not just assertions. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - Can't really argue with anything stated in the nomination. I agree on all points.  I came across one other article that seemed like a puff piece, and when trying to link, turned out it is blacklisted. -2pou (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2021 (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.