Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savaari (2018 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Savaari (2018 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

The general notability guideline states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."

Then more specific:
 * 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.
 * The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

Fails all of the above.

Now let's look at the references: Half of the references are the database entries. The rest is a very modest mentioning of 2-3 paragraphs with essentially negative or neutral reception.

Kolma8 (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  10:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep as has two full national reviews referenced in the article such as The Times of India so passes criteria 1 of WP:NFILM. The fact that the reviews are negative has nothing whatsoever to do with notability or any other policy at all, it just demonstrates that the reviews are independent critical analysis, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Per Atlantic306's rationale. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per two full length reviews from TOI and Matrubhumi. Critical perception is orthogonal to its notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep It passes the criteria of WP:NFILM. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 07:02, 12 January 2021 (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.