Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filmsaaz


 * 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. Consensus is that the improved article meets the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Filmsaaz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No real evidence of notability. Created by a SPA, the sources in the article are either primary, unreliable, or are clearly just republished PR pieces. Luke no 94 (tell Luke off here) 11:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, User:Arifjwadder put a notice on the talk page that the consensus was Keep, which it obviously isn't yet. I removed that false info from the page. -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   Health and Welfare   ‖ 13:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:INDAFD Filmsaaz


 * Keep per meeting WP:N. Glamsham, Planet Bollywood, and All Lights Film Magazine all appear suitable and independent of the festival. And while University Film Club, Aligarh Muslim University is not independent of the festival, even if not a source to convey notability, under WP:ABOUTSELF it is acceptable as a source for facts under WP:V. More, a little WP:BEFORE finds this topic spoken about in RS The Times of India  and The Hindu  and Bollywood Life  among others.. Topic notability is established. Wikipedia will benefit from article's improvement, not its deletion.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 18:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced those are anything beyond tabloid sources, with the exception of the Times of India and The Hindu. Also, if you'd actually looked at the Times of India sources, you'd know that the first one is totally useless, as it is not a proper piece, but some sort of generic announcement, and the second one literally is just one name drop right at the end. The Hindu source, meanwhile, is just a press release saying "this is happening". Did you actually look at any of these sources, or did you just see their existence and link to them? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:07, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you? Most India media appears to be "tabloid" in style... for briefness, but otherwise fine for reliability. Anyone who wonders about your claim about India media (and yes, not all is perfect by Western standards) and actually clicks the link will see that The Times of India is an authored article dealing with the topic directly and in some detail.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The first Times of India source does not contribute anything at all, and the second one mentions Filmsaaz literally once, in the passage of text that says Many of Prayoshala's films like Gaabha, Lipstick and 30p/min have become regulars in the short film festival circuit and have collectively won accolades at the Global Film Fest Noida, Filmsaaz International Film Festival Aligarh, Mumbai International Short Film Festival, Pune Short Film Festival, Satara Short Film Festival, Frames Film Festival and ICE Film Festival. There is no other mention of Filmsaaz, AMU, Aligarh or anything else that may be related to this film festival. It discusses the topic of amateur films getting awards at festivals, yes; but there is no way you can use this source as proving that Filmsaaz is notable if you actually read it. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 10:19, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahem... I have read policy WP:V, and know that anything contained in the article must be verifiable... but I also know that guide WP:N does not demand that a topic being sourced has to be the sole topic discussed in a source. It also appears you may be using personal opinion to misjudge all the many other available sources. What I determine is that we have here is a brand new article by an inexperienced contributor, and it has has no policy violations. It is somehow unreasonable to expect it to be improved over time and through regular editing? Heck... even suggesting it be moved to draft space is far less WP:BITEY to a newcomer than expecting his work be absolutely perfect the moment it comes into existence. Or do inexperienced newcomers not have a right to contribute??? What efforts have been made to school the noob in our policies and guides? Or do you believe the hat-note on Wikipedia's  main page should be removed?   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 18:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nowhere did I say that the topic being sourced had to be the sole topic being discussed. In fact, claiming that I did would be a lie. What I said was entirely correct - there was a grand total of ONE mention of Filmsaaz, which was right at the end of the article. That constitutes precisely 0 notability whatsoever; there is absolutely NO discussion of Filmsaaz, it is merely a name drop, placing it along various other film festivals but giving nothing on this festival. The fact appears to be that I read the sources, whilst you didn't even look at them properly... And please stop throwing Wikipedia alphabet soup at me; it's a frankly lame attempt at covering up your inability to actually read what I've written. There is a long history of sockpuppetry surrounding this university, and not only do both users involved show clear signs of being the same person, their actions, and some of their edits, are good evidence that they are not new. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 18:56, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ? ? ?. I never said you did... and only clarified that any impression that a source must be solely about the topic was erroneous. Saying that I claimed you said so would be the lie.
 * Are there any ongoing sockpuppet investigations over this article, or just empty inferences? It would be just as wrong and unhelpful to reasonable discussion were I to "imply" without proof or evidence that there were "a whole slew of anti-Muslim religious bias or sock-puppet issues surrounding the Lukeno94 user account". I will not do that.
 * Nor would I write that you were bending guides to meet a personal agenda, as that would be WP:ADHOM in an attempt to negatively color this discussion... I would not state that and experienced editors do not do that, do we?
 * I did ask about evaluations of the multiple other sources available, as being short in format does not automatically mean unreliable or ignorable... and received silence. I asked about any efforts to help a WP:NOOB with his new article and received silence.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Are there any ongoing sockpuppet investigations over this article" yes, yes there are (or rather, there was - it went stale and the CU was inconclusive. The behaviour is clear sock or meat though). Your bullshit "potential conspiracy theory" is irrelevant, as I've followed this topic on and off for a while, and I've seen and helped dismantle a long-term sockfarm in the past, which included a user that couldn't be anything other than linked with the university due to the name and actions (which included, you guessed it - creating and recreating articles on AMU-related student bodies in overtly promotional ways, and on bodies that failed GNG by a mile.) When you have no idea about the history of a topic area, it's a bad idea to start mouthing off in this kind of way at two users who actually have seen what has gone on historically. AGF is not a suicide pact, and thus I am not going to assume good faith about two nigh-on identical spammers who are directly linked to an organization that has a history of spamming. And my AGF with you has also pretty much run out. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: FYI I don't think the first Times of India article had the correct link above - that was just a headline. This is the actual article. —Мандичка YO 😜 06:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources both in the article as well as the ones linked here are mostly passing mentions. There is no indication that this film festival actually has any measure of notability even in its locale. The fact that it's obviously created by students of Aliargh Muslim University - a college whose students have a history of sockpuppetry and spamming the site with articles on non-notable subjects relating to their school - also smacks of an attempt at WP:NOTADVERTISING rather than a legitimate article. There are several other such articles being promoted by students of the university at this current time, as this usually tends to happen in short bursts. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Times of India is an authored article. Unless you are able to prove rather that simply claim without evidence that the TOI author has some affiliation with the festivals or that the article's author is a banned puppet, I politely tell you that you are sadly incorrect, and urge you to refrain form negatively coloring this discussion with WP:ADHOM. We judge an topic by its coverage. Not by a personal opinion or dislike of an institution.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is clear to any objective observer that my argument itself WAS based on the lack of reliable sources, while the mention of problems from the people involved is secondary. That you actually go one step further and rather pompously claim that I am acting solely on dislike of an institution betrays an odd bias on your part, and the exchange above insinuates that you're the one taking this personally. I don't plan on responding again, but suffice to say that you aren't helping your image by both behaving so rudely and making rather dishonest claims regarding the comments of others. Stating your own point above owuld have been sufficient and more objective. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And perhaps you could have simply to stuck your concern over sourcing instead of including an unsupported WP:ADHOM argument smearing the author. Whatever someone writes as a argument is worthy of refuting. Such is AFD. Thanks.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 20:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Rather than argue here that decent sources exist, I went ahead and addressed issues, tone, and sourcing in the article itself. The poorly constructed article first brought to AFD has been improved somewhat.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - This could have better sources but it is acceptable based on the improvement and at least appears better than articles in worse condition. My searches didn't find much aside from News and 1 Highbeam link with nothing at Books and thefreelibrary. SwisterTwister   talk  14:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets GNG —Мандичка YO 😜 06:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the Heymann standard. --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:01, 7 June 2015 (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.