Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silence 2: The Night Owl Bar Shootout


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There is a consensus that the articles have sources that establish notability. Behavior in this AFD has been poor. I think the first mistake was nominating this article just two hours after it was created. It probably should have been kept in Draft space until the fim was released and another solution, rather than coming to AFD, would have been to draftify the article. But after this AFD discussion was started, some editors let emotions dictate their comments which has the potential to derail a civil discussion. Then we get threats against the nominator which is totally out-of-line. Although I think it was premature to start this AFD, editors are required to assume good faith with all editors, especially those you disagree with. No one comes out looking good here and if I see behavior in an AFD descend into insults again, blocks will be issued. Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Silence 2: The Night Owl Bar Shootout

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Page says filming is complete but the reference used to support fails verification. Cannot find anything outside of WP:NEWSORGINDIA that would count towards notability. CNMall41 (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - who is the author of this article, left a message on my talk page asking for advice.  Inasmuch as this is not my area of knowledge, I would like to invite all who see this to help the author before trying to delete.  They are genuinely looking for editorial guidance on this. — Maile  (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the comment. Is the !vote yours or the creator's? Just wondering if they had policy based reasoning for why it meets notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's been a long day on these various AFD noms. I put the Keep here, but I am not sure why at this point.  Let's just leave it there for a day or so, and see how things go.  — Maile  (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Haha. Fair enough. Get some rest. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ping me later if nobody else chimes in, and mine is the only comment here. — Maile (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Changed it to Comment. — Maile (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - And as anticipated, IP has decided to remove maintenance templates without explanation. I would expect them to show up in the discussion next. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, are those templates needed if you take the page to Afd? The Notability template documentation even says: "The template must not be re-added. Please do not edit war over it. Questions of notability can be resolved through discussion or through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.".... Emphasis mine. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  19:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: 12 days is not a guarantee of notability. Policy based input please Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  00:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wait until announced film release.....in 12 days. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  19:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Even it film is released, notability is based on sourcing. If there is no current sourcing to support notability, draftify would be an WP:ATD until there is. However, many draftified film pages wind up right back here AfD when creator or another SPA moves it back to mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 12 days. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  00:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Clarify: This Afd comes either too late or too early. Draftify until announced release could be a solution but do that 6 days before the release of a film seems unfair when sources cover production. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  21:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep even tough releasing in a few days, it already has tons of coverage in Indian publications. I have added these 2 new ones thehindu.com and indiatoday.in.Hkkingg (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Tons of coverage" does not make something notable. That coverage must meet guidelines for reliable sourcing. The Hindu piece is under NEWSORGINDIA and I have removed it. The other with India Today is an announcement of the trailer. Hardly the coverage needed to make a film notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your removal, sorry. I couldn't find anything against The Hindu and India Today is not mentioned (in some threads of the noticeboard, the magazine is mentioned but consensus is not clear). Was your concern the fact that these sources were based on primary sources? - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  21:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Clarify: you cannot at the same time reinstate the Primary sources template, remove primary sources mentioned in reliable sources and take the page to Afd, that's too much at the same time in my view. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  21:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your refusal to adhere to NEWSORGINDIA and your refusal to take part in the linked discussion to overturn is concerning. I reverted as it is clearly against the consensus that decided NEWSORGINDIA. I am trying to AGF here but if you want to overturn consensus, you shouldn't try to do so through edit warring. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What refusal????? What are you talking about????? The Hindu is mentioned as RELIABLE in the link you provide. And India Today (the magazine) is NOT MENTIONED.....Oh, after all, I give up. Do as you like. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  21:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Last time...because this is getting into DE territory...these sources fall under NEWSORGINDIA and were added to show notability. They CANNOT be used for notability based on NEWSORGINDIA. You were asked to take place in a discussion at WP:RSN but stated you would refuse to do so. If you don't like the consensus that is NEWSORGINDIA, feel free to opine in the discussion but please stop being disruptive. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Final reply:
 * Where did I "state" I would "refuse" to take part in any discussion? When did I want to overturn any consensus? About what? (These are rhetorical questions, don't feel obliged to reply).
 * I DO like the current consensus, yes; not sure where I said I did not, and the said consensus (to which you yourself provide the link) says The Hindu is (very) reliable and does not mention India Today. If you want to change that, feel free. As for the 2 references you removed, sure they're not enough to attest notability if that's all there is, but why remove them from the page ? I've asked this twice (here and on the page (edit summary), but instead of explaining what precisely you thought was wrong with them and clarifying, you preferred another approach, which leads us to the last point.
 * .....As for me being "disruptive"/"edit war", if you have anything of the kind to say, this is not the forum to do so, especially when it's not based on anything specific except the fact that I am clearly not sharing your opinion about what should be done with the page. Anyway, all is well, I won't visit nor edit it anymore, and, there too, feel free to add and remove anything that you want. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  22:24, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you feel I am casting aspersions, ANI is that way. I'll gladly take my medicine if it is determined as such. Consensus would govern that just like it has with NEWSORGINDIA. As far as refusal, here you state "too much time spent on this for me and I find it pointless for me to argue any further about the sources" despite being provided to this discussion link. Note that another user who also agrees with the interpretation of NEWSORGINDIA pinged you in that discussion and have not seen you respond. You have also been told in other replies about the discussion both at the RSN and the Indian film taskfoce and have not taken the chance. Remember that process is important.--CNMall41 (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a blatant misuse of a quote taken out of context, as everyone can verify ...my statement is about 3 sources on that page and nothing more and it comes after a long discussion (that took place on at least 3 different pages!!!! So much for refusal of discussion!!) Full quote: "" (emphasis mine on my own words) And a few lines above, I even said I would have a look at your proposal(s)!!!! As for being pinged in an ongoing discussion about the TOI, sure, maybe, but was urgent active participation compulsory? I am satisfied with the current consensus, as I said multiple times to....you. Nevertheless, I actually have read one of the discussions you mention and did not know there were 2 venues. I'll have a look when I have more time. This is really my final reply here. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  23:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing misused. I provided the full link to what you said. I took the part about you saying its pointless to discuss the references anymore. This was after I provided you with the link to the relevant discussion. Please, if you want to accuse me of not assuming good faith, please go to ANI as this has become ad nauseam. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. The film has already been released and has reliable reviews (see reception section). I feel that  is right in this case. NEWSORGINDIA does not mention The Hindu and the fact that The Hindu requires subscription doesn't mean that specific article was paid for. Several newspapers like The New York Times  require subscription but that does not make them unreliable. Since the film has been released and has been the subject of reliable reviews    , any further discussion is a complete waste of time.


 * Before you say that The Times of India is unreliable, remember that Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable. . DareshMohan (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You are reading NEWSORGINDIA wrong. It does not need to mention The Hindu. The publications it lists are EXAMPLES. Just because one is not listed as an example does not mean that NEWSORGINDIA would not apply. Again, refer to the linked discussions and feel free to opine if you feel it needs changed. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @CNMall41 is this too unreliable? Or you want just all to be US Media only? Just to be WP:CIVIL, I wanted to know what more you need to demonstrate notability of the subject that you have AfDed? Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You have already crossed the line with lack of civility so here we are. What is the date of that reference and what is the date of the nomination? This isn't about US Media or Indian Media so don't even go down that road. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based discussion. Just because it has been released and there are reviews does not make it notable. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: The film has released, and there are reviews. Kailash29792 (talk)  04:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Speedy KEEP: film is absolutely blockbuster with reviews and it stars Great actors passes WP:NFILM why is this even nominated ? HarryD (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Yes, it does, actually. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  15:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't, actually. The reviews need to have SIGCOV in order to be used. Even if 1,000 reviews were released, if all of them are just a few sentences, they can't be used. Additionally, paid reviews don't count either (I think). Industrial Insect (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * THEN READ THE REVIEWS ON THE PAGE....seriously....this relist is ...unnecessary .... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  18:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You have made your case. Please allow others' voices to be heard @Mushy Yank Star   Mississippi  03:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For the second time, my input is the only thing you seem to notice in this discussion. I confess that I find this a bit strange. Anyway, you yourself had asked for "policy-based input" and, as I told you was very much expectable, now that the film was released, you have it. "While having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for potential editors.", says the guideline. Especially when a film is so clearly meeting various requirements. I have indeed no further comment and will not even bother changing my comment to Keep. If everyone else thinks we are not wasting other users' time and disheartening potential contributors or confusing the reader with that completely unnecessary deletion notice on the page, then, by all means, let's go for at least another round of policy-based Strong/Speedy Keep votes and more or less relevant general considerations about sources and guidelines. Best, - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  08:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: Reviews already cited are more than enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * KEEP -I don't understand for what this AfD is? CNMall41 is an experienced editor. Why this AfD? What more needed when tons of full length reviews are there?? This is really weird. And I don't believe that anyone with good understanding of WP:NFILM would come with a DELETE vote. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * One more "final" comment :D. To be fair, the Afd was initiated when those reviews hadn't been published yet (12 days before (:D)). But you are right, withdrawing would have been appreciated (especially when the release made the rationale totally moot); then it was relisted (which was after release and publication of the reviews....; but I was accused of BLUDGEONing when I mentioned that reviews were more than enough (!))), so unless someone has the good idea to close this as SNOW, here we are.... - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)  17:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This AfD is no different than this AfD. I could close this AfD as KEEP with WP:SNOW as non-admin closure. But I won't. Let this AfD to be an example of WP:CIR of the nominator. Probably they would end up at WP:ANI someday, someway. Twinkle1990 (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just stop. If either of you feel my conduct is in any way nefarious, please take it to ANI. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @CNMall41 I assume this "Just stop." isn't per WP:CIVIL. Why? Had you? Even after 18 days? It is more than enough for you to withdraw. Twinkle1990 (talk) 05:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No need to assume, I will make it clear. You made a comment about conduct instead of opining a rationale for keeping. Not civil, and in fact more of WP:BAITING. You obviously didn't based your comment on policy as you would see this was nominated before any reviews were added. And now, you make an accusation of incompetency. So, if you have an issue with my actions, take them to ANI. I would advise you to WP:DTS here though. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2024 (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.