Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gumrah (1993 film)


 * 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. MuZemike 02:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Gumrah (1993 film)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable movie. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  02:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, I fear. This poor fellow is convinced I'm "bullying" him and I'm not.  I was going to try and clean this up, but it's so garbled that even if it were a notable film, the article would require a total rewrite.  I'm certainly not against it staying if references can be added and if someone can clean it up. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 04:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 04:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The fact that it is hard to understand is not an insurmountable problem (the editor who created it has a history of writing articles which need re-writing), but the fact that it fails Notability (films) is. A search failed to find significant coverage - most of the references I could find refer to the 1963 film (Gumrah (1963 film)), and the rest are one-line mentions. I couldn't find any full reviews, let alone those "by two or more nationally known critics", it is not historically notable going by the guidelines, there is no indication of it winning any major awards, etc. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 07:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per SpacemanSpiff and Shreevatsa's arguments below --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 09:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The same user has created a few more of these same types of articles. One movie article had exactly one relevant hit while a few others had blocks of copyrighted text in them, something I warned him about before.  I've left word on his talk page offering to help him on his next idea.  He seems to mean well, but he's having trouble grasping the concept of the site.  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - per PhantomSteve. Clubmarx (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article has been rewritten, expanded, and is now coherent. Search for sources is made difficult because there are several films with the same name made by different filmmakers. Search using "film name"+"director name" is showing results. Made enough of an impression when it screened in Nigeria in the mid-90s that author Brian Larkin made special note of the audience's reaction to the film in his 2008 book  Signal and noise: media, infrastructure, and urban culture in Nigeria‎. Now while I have not yet found a New York Times or Variety review of this 1993 Hindi language Bollywood film, I believe it would be prudent to consider WP:CSB and allow the article to remain and be further improved, as there is most definitely a language barrier that must be considered. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As I said above, as far as I was concerned, the fact that it was poorly written was not an issue - indications of notability, including references, was. Having had a look at the four references cited, here are my comments:
 * The first reference merely confirms the details in the first paragraph. As such, it is suitable as a reference.
 * The second reference doesn't necessarilly indicate that the sound track was a "hit" - the actual quotation at the reference is this six-track album of Gumrah is on the steady rise on the popularity charts - it doesn't indicate where it entered those charts (it could have been rising from position 100 one week to position 95 the next - or it could have got to number 1) - there is no evidence of how successful it actual was.
 * The third reference refers to the 1963 film of the same name (quote from the source cited: Sunil Dutt starred in the successful Gumrah of 1963) - the rest of the reference mentions this version (Both films did well) but it doesn't indicate what it means by that. Does did well mean it made a lot of money, didn't have a shortened run, or what?
 * The fourth reference about Nigeria was an interesting one - but from the text you haven't been told the complete context - was this film actually only one of a very few films that the cinema showed repeatedly because they couldn't afford to buy many films? We don't know, and the book doesn't enlighten us about why it was so well known, merely that it was. I might be wrong, but I wasn't aware that Nigeria was a huge importer of Indian films - so this was an interesting reference, to say the least.
 * However, Notability (films) gives the following criteria for notability for films:


 * A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
 * The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
 * The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
 * Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
 * The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.
 * The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
 * The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
 * The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.
 * The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. No evidence found
 * The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. No evidence found
 * The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand"
 * The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.
 * The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited


 * In summary, I do not feel that there is any evidence that it meets notability for a film article on Wikipedia --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 12:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Quite obviously you aren't going to find online reviews because the online archives for The Hindu go back to 2000, The Times of India to 2004 and Indian Express to 2002 and none of the Indian Film Magazines have online archives more than a year old. The fact is that more than 15 years after the film was made, it's still referred to as a hit or in the context of the cast/production team and that content is sufficient to create a stub. As for plot summary, Yahoo movies can be a source. While this can't be used as a source, it's a reproduction of an article in Movie magazine (India) highlighting Sridevi's role. In this Screen India interview, orginally 1993, reprinted in 2004, she talks about Gumrah - a future movie. Sridevi was also nominated for the Filmfare Best Actress Award for this movie. And Cine Blitz has covered the movie even before launch - here and here, and India Today had pre-production coverage, so is it even likely that the film would not have been reviewed by two national critics? And add to that the cast includes Sridevi as the protagonist, Sanjay Dutt as the lead actor, Anupam Kher in a supporting role, directed by Mahesh Bhatt, produced by Yash Johar. So, ignore the fact that this was created by a user who may have created other inappropriate pages, stop the wikilawyering, stub the article with material that is referenced and keep it. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 16:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment An interesting reasoning for keeping the article. As you would have seen above, the fact that the wording wasn't good, and that the user has created other inappropriate pages has never been an issue for me. The issue for me is notability. Yes, it received pre-release coverage - but why is it, then, that post-release coverage isn't available, if it is that significant? Yes, the cast and crew are significant in their own right, but does that automatically mean that all movies using a combination of them are automatically notable? My feeling (and this is my opinion, not using any guidelines or policies) is that if a movie is that notable, it would have been referenced in various scholarly works - I know that Google's coverage of non-Western publications isn't extensive, but surely any movie which meets the criteria listed above for notability for movies would be covered somewhere? Or are you saying that this film is a significant role and/or a major part of one of the cast/crew's career - even if reviews, etc, of the film are not available because online sources don't go back far enough, I would have thought that if it was a significant part of one of the cast or producer's careers, there would be significant coverage of that. SpacemanSpiff, I have found that generally when I see a comment from you on something, I tend to agree... this is one which we will have to agree to disagree about, as although I understand what you are saying (online sourcing isn't the be-all and end-all of citations, I agree) I still think we need more evidence of the notability/importance of this film. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason you aren't going to find online reviews is because India Today doesn't review films, it covers them; Cine Blitz and India Today archives in Gbooks are restricted to what was available at University of Michigan at the time of Google's scans. Film reviews will be found in The Hindu - Friday features, The Times of India, Indian Express, Filmfare and a few others, none of which have either Gnews or Gbooks archives going back to even 2000, let alone 1993. The reason for including the cast and production staff in my comment - would we even think that a movie starring Russel Crowe and Meg Ryan, directed by Robert Redford and produced by Warner Brothers not have been reviewed? The comparisons are obviously exaggerations given Oscar wins etc, but notability within Bollywood for the cast/crew of the movie roughly translates to these comparisons. If anyone has the time to go to a library and dig up the Microfilm archives for Times of India in 1993, they'll find the review, until then, the good faith assumption, taking some of these publications at face value when they say the movie was a success or Sridevi's role was great etc should be sufficient. Now, I've argued on both sides of the delete debate for a wide variety of Indian films that come here, and this one's a good faith keep IMO. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 18:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is kept, here are some references I found that could be useful for expanding the article - how many would count as reliable, I don't know! These are basically all of the ones I could find (most other references were either "x starred in Gumrah" type with no details, or links to buy DVDs or download about the film):


 * Reviews:
 * Sridevi.biz review
 * Blog about Sanjay Dutt - Review of Gumrah
 * Cast and crew:
 * IMDB Cast & Crew
 * ApunKaChoice.com (Bollywood at your fingertips!) Synopsis and Cast/Crew links
 * Bollywood Hungama Cast Listing
 * Awards
 * IMDB Awards: 1994 Nominated Filmfare Award Best Actress Sridevi


 * Although I don't think the article should be kept, as I don't feel it meets notability, if it is kept then I've done all I can (without going to India, I guess!) to find sources of information. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 19:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It would also need to be added to Bollywood films of 1993 --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 19:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per SpacemanSpiff's rationale. Salih  ( talk ) 19:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a notable film, and easily more so than many of the American straight-to-video movies considered "notable". It must be kept in mind that notability is not simply the outcome of games played between Wikipedia editors with WP:NF as rules, but something that is presumed to exist and for which WP:NF is a guideline. There are two arguments in the delete vote that would be a dangerous precedent: (1) "would have been referenced in various scholarly works": this is not the case, as most movies (and popular culture in general) in India simply do not get anywhere the level of obsession or academic attention that is granted to them in the West. Does this mean that Indian movies are inherently less notable? (2) the reliance on online resources: this is bad, since as SpacemanSpiff pointed out, online archives are flaky. Both of these, and other things to watch out for, are covered at WP:Countering systemic bias. In this case, given that it is a big-budget film produced by Yash Johar and featuring major stars and director, and the sources online mention phrases like "mammoth production" and "company's biggest hits over the years, from Dostana in the 80s to Gumrah in the 90s to the more recent Kabhi Alvida Na Kehna" (which isn't actually true, but whatever), and the coverage before launch mentioned above, it is fairly clear—and safe to assume—that the film was notable, did arrive with a lot of hype, and received reviews (more than two!) in national newspapers and the like. To use Spiff's pat analogy: would you assume, in the absence of other information, that any film starring Russell Crowe or nominated for one of the major Oscars might be non-notable (by the current guidelines. I'm not proposing a new criterion for notability)? Shreevatsa (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have changed my !vote to keep, as the points raised by SpacemanSpiff and Shreevatsa have persuaded me that this film is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Major stars, big pre-release publicity, big budget - all valid arguments in combination for its inclusion. That's the good thing about AfDs - you get to hear lots of arguments for and against, and get the opportunity to re-evaluate your position. Thank you both for your arguments. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 09:04, 12 September 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.