Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sata Lota Pan Sagla Khota


 * 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 Userfy to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Sata Lota Pan Sagla Khota, per request from Schmidt. SpinningSpark 22:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sata Lota Pan Sagla Khota

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Advert for non-notable new film; sourcing is horrible Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  03:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. Possibly WP:SELFPROMOTION as well MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Update to my previous posts. I am still in favor of deletion. In spite of MQS's work The article fail the "significant coverage" (brief sentences about an upcoming film in two articles that are about other things is not significant) and "secondary sources" (the main reference used is an interview with the director) of WP:GNG. However, as I stated below a move to MQS's user space is also okay. But there needs to be work meeting the two items I have mentioned before any move back into mainspace. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Marathi:


 * Keep This new article just meets WP:NF as a completed film from an award-winning filmmaker, due for release, and beginning to get coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 2). Under WP:HANDLE, being poorly written is not a valid deletion rationale., and what can be improved rarely needs deletion. Please take a look at the article now as far less flowery in tone and a little better sourced than that first brought to AFD.  I do not expect your withdrawal, but please consider WP:NFF (paragraph 2).  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Your efforts are appreciated . The article is improved but I have some reservations. Just because someone has won an award does not necessarily mean that they (or there works other than the award winning one) meet WikiP's notability standards. We don't have an article for Deodhar and you linked to the NFA(I) article but did not link to anything about award(s) won by her. Refs 2 and 3 only mention the film in the last sentence so the bulk of the article is sourced to the one interview. Also, ref 3 only discusses the friendship between the actors - it makes no mention of any audience appreciation - expected or otherwise - for the upcoming film. I'm not sure that her "personal problems" should be mentioned. I know why you put it there since it is in the interview but readers may want to know what those problems were and I don't think they are relevant to the film. You might substitute that "she had the idea for the film for years". This is just a suggestion though if you are happy about the sentence then that is fine. For me the sourcing is too thin at the moment. I do have one suggestion - it is possible that there were be much more info after the film hits theatres. So I would be fine with Move to draft or user space if you wanted to do this. I'll wait for your response before giving my final thoughts. It is late here so I might not see your response until tomorrow. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for looking back in . If there were an article on her, details on her mother and husband's deaths could certainly be included in it as they had an affect on her career, and I mentioned it neutrally in this article only because it helps explain this film's production and her state of mind. I mentioned her above as an award winner only because it allows a reasonable presumption that as her newest work, this will receive more coverage. If deleted, I will certainly take it to a userspace for the (expected) short time.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 20:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jim Carter (from public cyber)  19:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails under WP:GNG and seems to be very promotional as well. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? In just way do you feel a neutral and sourced article is "very promotional". ALL articles withing Wikipedia "promote" their topics, and as a completed and unreleased film, it would seem that its beginning to receive coverage specifically meets the instruction at WP:NFF (paragraph 3)... even if just.  Yes, what was first nominated was poor, but regular editing has made it better.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * - Maybe calling it promotional was a bit of a stretch, and I certainly wouldn't call it an entirely promotional article. However, there are does not appear to be a lot of sources related to the film, and those that I did find were either on film sites or Tumblr. Either way, this film doesn't have significant coverage, or very many secondary sources, so it isn't notable to be on wikipedia. Aerospeed (Talk) 22:07, 1 December 2014 (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.