Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ma timi bina marihalchhu


 * 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 for lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The two sources cited at this time do not qualify: The first is just a site hosting pictures of movie posters (the sources of which are not clear - the site could be affiliated with the production company or the images could even be fan creations for all we know) and the second has nothing to do with the film at all (it is used solely to corroborate a statement about the production company). The issue is not whether the film exists, but whether it is notable. The article as it stands at the time of closure fails our standard criteria. Kafziel Complaint Department 22:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ma timi bina marihalchhu

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete nn film, fails WP:FILM WP:NF Mayalld (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Why, because it is not in your language. Your nomination is racist and offensive. NEver yer PAL (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC) — NEver yer PAL (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * No, it's really not. PC78 (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Not because it isn't in my language, but because it doesn't appear to meet the guideline for notability of films. Your accusation appears to be a failure to assume good faith Mayalld (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 16:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Google search reveals little, but having no knowledge whatsoever of Nepalese cinema, this could easily be a case of systematic bias. PC78 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a notable Nepalese film. NEver yer PAL (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC) — NEver yer PAL (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It would be helpful if you could provide some sources. PC78 (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Is there a Wiki Nepal? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mayalld. Not a notable film. Every film ever shot in recorded history in every country in every language can't have its own entry - Wikipedia is not IMDB. TruthGal (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly everyone voting for delete here has no knowledge films of made in Nepal. WTF are you voting on articles you know nothing about?  203.194.16.121 (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The previous commenter has never before contributed to Wikipedia. His/her first entry here is to insult those of us who have voiced our opinion against this Wiki article. I suspect he/she is somehow related to the film or the creation of the article about it. TruthGal (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't think we're entiled to marginalize an already small nation. BMurray (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment we aren't marginalising a small nation. We are saying that the film isn't notable. You appear to be suggesting that we throw the notability criteria in the bin if a small nation is involved. Mayalld (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Vatican City is an even smaller nation - any NN films of theirs we should add to Wikipedia? TruthGal (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

*Keep For a Nepalese film, this is pretty notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.5.109 (talk) 22:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Clearly the same Australian IP user as User:203.194.16.121 above. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Evidence? We really need a bit more than your say so. PC78 (talk) 00:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Here we go again: The unsigned commenter whose IP address is 203.194.5.109 has never before contributed to Wikipedia. His/her first entry here just happens to be to vote against deletion of Ma timi bina marihalchhu. Just as was the unsigned commenter with the IP addresss 203.194.16.121. So I think two of the Keeps are suspect at best. TruthGal (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect to everyone who has commented here, I think all of the "keep"s are suspect. No one so far has produced a shred of evidence that might indicate any notability for this film, which is really what we're discussing here. PC78 (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's heaps well known. Plus I think it's the Yeti's fave film but don't have a citation because he's a mythical creation but he actually exists and I think my mom is having an affair with him and dad doesn't know but he's sleeping w/ his secretary which makes it semi-okay.  But keep the article, the director is really well known in Nepal but references are in another language thus few GHITS Cumbot (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC) — Cumbot (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

*Keep It's a popular film with a hit song in the soundtrack plus the first celluloid film in Nepal with Dolby Digital sound. Therefore notable! NEver yer PAL (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Duplicate vote. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This user has already !voted above, and appears to be yet another Mayalld (talk) 06:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

*Keep first celluloid film in Nepal with Dolby Digital sound —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.16.90 (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC) Clearly the same Australian IP user as User:203.194.16.121 above. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- No results came back on IMDB, which means immediate non-notability. Come back when this wins a Palme d'Or or the Oscars. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't find anything either that shows why this film is notable. Also, perhaps a block is in order for the SPA/disruptive accounts? Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If this film is really highly noteable in Nepal, then I would support keeping it. But we need evidence from WP:Reliable sources for this not the say so of editors or claims by the film promoters. These reliable sources could be in the Nepali language. It may also be helpful if an editor adds the name in the Nepali language (in the Devanagari script) the the article. I don't think IMDB is a particularly good way of determing the notability of a film from a fairly isolated country. Nil Einne (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've managed to find someone to add the name in Nepali but unfortunately it doesn't show any more results. This may not mean much since it's possible the a lot of the references are not online or there are other problems (e.g. a lack of indexing, using images instead of text) that mean relevant results are not in Google Nil Einne (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, the reference in this article fails to establish the notability of the subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm willing to presume that any film that is able to be shot in Nepal with 35mm film is exceptional enough to warrant notability within the national cinema. (Considering that IMDb does not list any Nepalese films from 2007 onwards at the moment.) Furthermore, the article's creator seems to have an excellent familiarity with Nepalese cinema, has family from there, and has a contribution history indicative of such. Without evidence to the contrary, I am inclined to believe that he knows the subject well enough to write about it from a more informed perspective than almost all other editors working on film articles. (Unless someone is ready to take a crash-course in Nepalese cinema.) Considering a dearth of editors interested in writing about Nepali film in English, I think it's imperative that we cultivate these contacts rather than summarily dismiss them for lack of our own perspective. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment So, what you are saying is that we should just ignore WP:V and allow WP:OR Mayalld (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentThat may be following the policy to the letter but you are violating the spirit NEver yer PAL (talk) 11:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The policy says we must have sources. Do you claim that the spirit of the self-same policy is that we need not have sources? Mayalld (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep As with the reasoning of Girolamo Savonarola. I also have some familiarity with pictures from Nepal and this film is very notable. Sherpa from Nepal (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC) — Sherpa from Nepal (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment yes, people have said that, but where are the sources to verify this notability? Mayalld (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You clearly have no knowledge of Nepali film. Nepali films have very little coverage on the internet so providing neat links to the Imdb is difficult.  Primary sources can be found but it isn't as easy as a quick Google search. NEver yer PAL (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, that is correct, I have no knowledge of Nepali film. We have policies like WP:V for that reason, so that I, without knowing the subject can verify the article. Sources don't have to be on-line to be valid, but they do have to exist, and "I know about Nepali films" doesn't cut it. Just to clarify one issue though. Inclusion in IMDB doesn't automatically show notability. Their criteria for inclusion is much lower than ours. As such, if a film doesn't appear in IMDB (with its lower bar to entry), its claim to notability is going to be very weak. Mayalld (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Why are you nominating articles for deletion on topics you are completely ignorant of? NEver yer PAL (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Because I believe that the article is about a non-notable subject. Now, do you want to try and prove notability, or do you hope to derail the AfD by attacking me? Mayalld (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This is not an attack. I am truly curious as to why you are nominating an article for deletion on a topic that you admittedly have "no knowledge" about. NEver yer PAL (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment So, it wasn't you who immediately failed to assume good faith by calling the nomination racist? I don't need to know about Nepali film to recognise a lack of reliable sources for this article. Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion are written such that one does not have to be a subject matter expert to recognise a non-notable article Mayalld (talk) 12:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You're avoiding the question. Again, why are you nominating articles for deletion on topics you are completely ignorant of?  Surely a better option would be to tag the article as lacking sources. NEver yer PAL (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Users need not be familiar with a subject to nominate it for deletion. It is the responsibility of the article to show that it is notable by naming reliable sources that provide verifiabilty. If there is little or no evidence that reliable sources exist (as is the case here), then an article is likely to be brought to AfD. PC78 (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep User is clearly knowledgeable about Nepali film. Considering that the poster for this film has been found, there is little question that the film exists. The remaining question is whether the film is notable. The lack of Nepalese film industry info on this internet makes this hard to judge, but I think the few references I've found show sufficient notability to keep this around. The director of the film is one of the top directors in Nepal, and the production company is known for its lavish spending on films. I can't imagine that a film by one of a country's top directors, from one of its spendiest production companies, has not received substantial press in its home country. Perhaps if it hasn't been improved in some time this could be reconsidered.  Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, possibly revisit this discussion in future. At the time of this comment, there is a reference to a news service story in the article. The hurdle of reliable sourcing appears to have been met. I'd like to see more sources, but I think that's enough to keep the article for now. —C.Fred (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2008 (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.