Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldmines Telefilms


 * 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.  Sandstein  21:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Goldmines Telefilms
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article has been created yet again despite still not meeting WP:GNG. Seems to be a COI. –– FormalDude  talk  10:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Companies,  and India. –– FormalDude   talk  10:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - as the creator, I acknowledge this isn't the best article. However, I think the sourcing and content is more developed and different enough from previous versions that it meets GNG (see previous discussion on talk page from the PROD). After Pushpa, significant attention has been drawn to Goldmines for there to be enough articles focusing on the company from reliable sources (albeit mostly involving interviews). As for COI, well, I really doubt an article made as the result of COI would have any mention of corruption accusations against the subject. MSG17 (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Old version of article not avaliable in current page history, so archived link: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/VFwZ7
 * The article has changed, for the better. The article has been cleaned up, and it looks like good reliable sources have been added (like ones from the Economic Times and New York State Bar Association). Rlink2 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Sourcing passes the GNG. I also would support restoring a separate page for the TV channel. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 05:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 05:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a company, so the applicable guideline is WP:NCORP, which specifically says that These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals.
 * From the refs in this version - Scroll (31 Jan 2022), Firstpost (8 Feb 2022), IE (8 Feb 2022) are long interviews of the chairman, Manish Shah. They mention very little about the company. The next 3 refs are on corruption investigation at Sony, where again, Manish Shah is discussed briefly and the company is only mentioned as part of his employment status. Of the rest, Indiantelevision.com (whose about page says - Apart from conceiving and executing promotional campaigns targeted at the Media, Marketing & Television Trade online, it also offers similar services offline making clear its reliability) is the parent of TellyChakkar, which even WP:ICTFSOURCES holds unreliable.  Journalismguide seems to be nothing more than a blog. Refs 10-12 by Filmfare, BH and IE about Shehzada/Aryan cover some gossip-like issue and are significantly made up of quotes. IE does not even mention the company's name.


 * Given how majority (9/12) of references are from late-Jan, early Feb 2022 when their movie was released, I cannot see the coverage as being independent or not marketing-driven. Hemantha (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for looking at the current version of the article and going into the sources. I think that, while they are interviews, they do go rather in-depth on the company's model and success. Admittedly I couldn't find the best sourcing for some things, and yes there is a lot of mentions rather than major coverage, but I'll look at other sources and see what other people have to say. MSG17 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Interviews are Primary sources which cannot be used to substantiate notability but also fail the WP:ORGIND section of NCORP as not providing "Independent Content".  HighKing++ 16:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, strong indication of WP:COI/WP:UPI. References to till date not yet meeting WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Hemantha above, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company as per NCORP guidelines.  HighKing++ 16:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete GNG does not apply here! This is a company so NCORP applies and Hemantha has shown it doesn’t pass its standards. SK2242 (talk) 06:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NCORP117.242.214.54 (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2022 (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.