Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jawani Ki Hawa (1959 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Jawani Ki Hawa (1959 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article about a Bollywood film. The 3 references are to listings sites, IMDb, the external link, is not WP:RS. A WP:BEFORE search turned up some more listings sites, YouTube clips, and so on, but nothing RS. The best I could find is that the genre is "religious", but not even the plot. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Complete Index To World Film (CITWF) – a UK based internationally-recognised FILM database website and Cineplot.com are both Reliable Sources WP:RS and MuVyz.com website, the Deletion nominator mentions above is another reliable film website. In fact, one of the largest Indian film website being used and accepted by Wikipedia for years. In my view, the article already has enough reliable references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Database sites do not establish notability. They may be RS for content, but they do not establish notability.   // Timothy ::  talk  20:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Ngrewal1, can you go into detail about how CIWF and MuYyz are WP:RS. Both appear to be film databases, which, WP:RS states, A film's entry in the The Internet Movie Database, or similar databases, can provide valuable information including links to reviews, articles, and media references. A page in the database does not by itself establish the film's notability, however..  Also, neither are listed under WP:FILM/R, which outlines many sites that are reliable for films. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply Let the Wikipedia community decide what has been acceptable for many years now! Have they already changed their acceptability criteria for films? It's getting to the point, where as an editor, I am so afraid to even use IMDb as an External link now or even mention its name on Wikipedia. I absolutely don't use it as a reference in the main article body. As far as I know, nobody ever has objected to CITWF and Cineplot.com being used as sources so far...and I have been regularly using them since 2012.Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG; needs reviews rather than just database listings to pass Spiderone  14:20, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Added 2 new film reviews and references today, passes WP:NFILM now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm looking for the film reviews you added, but can't find them. Are you referring to the two database sites you added?  // Timothy ::  talk  20:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable per WP:N and WP:NFILM, and now with added sources by and one by me now.  Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  10:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - passes WP:NFILM. Onel 5969  TT me 16:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: References do not establish notability.
 * "Rajadhyaksha, Ashish; Willemen, Paul (2014). Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema." A brief entry in a tertiary source. Does not meet SIGCOV.
 * "Film Review of Jawani Ki Hawa (1959) on MuVyz.com website Retrieved 13 September 2020". A database site.
 * "(Alan Goble) Jawani Ki Hawa (1959 film) on Complete Index To World Film (CITWF) website" - A database site.
 * "Films released in 1959 on Cineplot.com website " a database site
 * "Original Film Poster of Jawani Ki Hawa (1959 film) on pinterest.com website" The film poster on a Pinterest account
 * "Complete cast and crew of film Jawani Ki Hawa (1959) Cinestaan.com website" A database site
 * Sum total: 1 brief entry in a tertiary source, 4 database sites, and a Pinterest site with the poster.
 * It's clear individuals have tried hard to find sources that establish notability, but they have failed to do so. This effort shows the film is not notable.  // Timothy ::  talk  20:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable tertiary sources are perfectly acceptable as per WP:Tertiary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Going back 60 years or 70 years ago, if any in-depth film reviews were written for this film or many other films from the 1950s, they have been purged or deleted by the newspapers and film magazines by now to make room for other stuff as their priorities changed with time. It should not mean films from the 1950s or the 1960s are less important now. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is supposed to preserve things from a historical perspective also. Realistically, if we absolutely insisted on having film reviews for each old film and kept having this dismissive attitude towards the existing film databases, then I am afraid in 2020, hardly any films currently on Wikipedia from the 1950s or 1960s would survive. Wikipedia community has to have a realistic attitude here and think things through before piling up unrealistic demands on 'contributing editors' that are trying to save some legitimate work that they or others have done. One needs to go back and count how many existing Wikipedia film articles hardly have just one or two database references and continue to survive on Wikipedia for so many years. Is Wikipedia community ready to DELETE them all in one big sweep, or give people chance to improve them as best as they can, given the available sources for those old films, under a realistic policy considering how much time has elapsed since they were first released. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Frankly and sincerely, I am asking all these regular critics on AfD, to try and add film reviews to some of these old films to move things forward. Their convenient attitude shouldn't be ... either you and others add film reviews or it gets deleted!!! In the meantime, we just sit back and watch you struggle with it. How about giving a chance to improve it as best as one can, considering the age of the film and available sources for it? Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, Ngrewal1, while I understand where you are coming from, posting these pleas on AfDs isn't going to change policy. In order to get Wikipedia to make "exceptions" or "different rules" for older films, you need to present your case in a request.  Try reading WP:PROPOSAL and follow the steps.  You might get something to happen that way, but posting to AfD discussions you will get a lot of head nods of agreement, but since no policy has changed, that's all you will get. Thanks and good luck. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The discussion has clearly shown this does not meet WP:NFILM. Arguments have been made asking for an IAR keep, but the absence of sources by itself canot ever be a viable argument; if there are reasons to think this film may be notable despite the absence of available coverage, then those reasons need to be enumerated.
 * Delete- The mere presence of sources does not necessarily establish notability. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a Database. IMDB (a database) does a terrific job at maintaining records of past films but more than just cast names and release dates are required to make films notable in encyclopedias. If the rules are to be bent for older films then they need to be discussed first at appropriate venues, but until then the film fails WP:NFILM. Sunshine1191 (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Donaldd23 Thanks for your above suggestion. Again and still my question is ... how did these thousands upon thousands of films were initially 'accepted', with film database references and ended up surviving for so many years on Wikipedia without having required accompanying authentic 'film reviews' while these same rules existed? It's possible that Wikipedia community allowed it to happen, hoping some future contributing editors would come along and add more references, expand and improve them. Happens all the time, we all know it, with even these rules being there. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Ngrewal1, Wikipedia's policies change over time. When Wikipedia first started it was a "lawless state" where anyone could post anything without proving it deserved an article. Over time the policies and guidance change and evolve.  So, articles that survived many years are now just being looked at and judged based on current policies. Also, the focus of some editors have changed over time.  I've been editing since 2006, but it was just this past summer (when I had more time due to the pandemic) that I started looking at film articles that were tagged with "notability" issues.  When I started back in May, there were over 1,800 films tagged.  Through my work, and many others, we have whittled it down to (currently) under 200.  We've done this through looking at each article and searching for citations.  If we found enough we added them and removed the notability tag.  If we couldn't find enough citations we put them up for discussion (like the one here).  Sometimes others find enough citations to save it, other times nothing is found and the article is deleted.  But, to your point the fact that some articles survived "so many years" is not evidence of notability and all it takes is one person to add a notability tag to get an editor like me to look at the article for the first time in my life and discover that it fails the policies and guidance specified now by the Wikipedia community. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 20:30, 27 September 2020 (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.