Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kasam Ishq ke


 * 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 Draftify. See Draft:Kasam Ishq ke. A clear consensus that this subject isn't notable at the moment, but a couple have requested it be preserved as a draft and no one has shown any harm would come from that. Jenks24 (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Kasam Ishq ke

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * Anglified:

Promotional article about a film just released yesterday. I was unable to find any reliable sources when searching for the director, film title in English, and कसम इश्क़ के. Fails WP:GNG. - MrX 15:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * sharing my looking beyond the article:
 * Bhojpuri:
 * Translated:
 * director:)
 * producer:
 * writer:
 * music:
 * music:
 * studio:
 * distributor:
 * WP:INDAFD: Kasam Ishq Ke कसम इश्क़ के A.K. Rai Subhash Nishad Manoj Pandey Jahid Akthar Narendra Sinha Creator's Lab


 * Comment: A Brand new article sent to AFD with hours of it being contributed, and as this topic appears improvable using Bhojpuri language sources, I suggest we encourage that it be done rather than toss because of English sourcing issues for a film not written in nor released in English. Perhaps far better and less bitey to simply draftify it for continued work away from article space.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 13:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no time limit on sending article to AfD, nor is it bitey. The WP:BURDEN of sourcing belongs to editor who adds the material to the article. Not every film released a day ago is notable. Start up production companies frequently release films to YouTube, Vimeo, etc., and most are not notable.- MrX 14:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A conjecture of what any film company may or may not do is not the issue, but yes, not all films are notable, and conversely many are that do not (yet) have articles. So?   How would an inexperienced newcomer even know what WP:BURDEN is?  Or MOS:FILM?  Or WP:NF? Or WP:NRVE? or WP:NEXIST?  Since I am not able to read this newcomer's mind, I do not know whether or not he/she feels BITTEN.  A new contributor could either feel like his efforts are being diminished and he is then chased away... or he/she may feel that it is worth the time and effort to learn and improve contributions and editing skills.  Which option best serves the project and its readers?  A newcomer's not knowing how to use available (non-English) sources as citations does not mean sources do not exist, nor make contributions automatically non-notable. If something is arguably improvable, which option best serves Wikipedia... demanding it be deleted that same day due to the author's inexperience, or assuming good faith in the efforts and encouraging that it be improved out-of-mainspace?   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 16:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to debate my views vs. your views about our deletion policy or about how we treat new editors, but this is not really the place to do it. My actions have been well within established guidelines, and widespread practice among new page patrollers. Contrary to what you assert, I did not demand "it be deleted that same day". This is a seven day (or more) process. The only thing that matters here is, is the subject notable as evidenced by substantial coverage in (independent) reliable sources? - MrX 17:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No debate, specially if the article history has been tampered with and you were not the person who sent it to AFD the same day it was contributed. And since your statement makes it appear you understand the Bhojpuri language, please accept that I was unaware of your linguistic abilities, and in my own inability to read Bhojpuri I felt less inclined to declare these Bhojpuri sources as unsuitable.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 17:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Draftify or userfy temporarily and allow a return once sources have been included to make possible notability more obvious. No need for an outright deletion of a sourcable topic simply because it needs work.  Volunteers at New Page Patrollers do pretty well for the most part, and their own list of purposes suggests tagging for addressable issues and that a level of courtesy be shown toward newbies. So while there is no rule saying that patrollers cannot take the very newest contributions first, their own guide suggests an assumption of good faith and a collaboration with newbies in addressing problems and so, IMHO, sending this to draft is courteous and will serve the project.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 19:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment The creator's account has now been blocked, so userfying it won't serve any purpose. Draftify or delete are now the only available choices. --Drm310 (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, blocked for a username violation only... a problem with his not having clue. If he returns with an acceptable username and asks, it can be userfied to him.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as there's still nothing here convincing for notability despite it's now over a week since the film's release. Delete until someone can find better. SwisterTwister   talk  04:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing current notability, and you may have missed or ignored that I pointed out Bhojpuri language sources which exist and may be suitable. If we draftify, it takes in out of article space until it gets better sourcing. If deleted for needing work, who would know to even look?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Draftify or Userfy seem a better option than deletion, the content doesn't appear inherently problematic. --joe deckertalk 16:59, 7 June 2016 (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.