Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tu Maza Jeev


 * 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 no consensus. Absence of good evidence one way or another.  DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Tu Maza Jeev

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I CSD nominated this per WP:SNOW but it was denied so I'm taking it here - it is pretty close to being pure vandalism given that the creator has created it in mainspace at least three times (including the current version), had it moved to draftspace at least twice, had the draft rejected repeatedly, had several editors pointing out the things that are missing, and has now cut and pasted the rejected draft without attempting to address any of the issues. Of course an article doesn't have to pass AfC, but bypassing the rejection of AfC reviewers three times and creating the article in mainspace anyway is just disruptive. Specifically, the film lacks notability per WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. There is one source that's borderline reliable (a city edition of Times of India - that's generally not considered a reliable source but might be acceptable together with multiple other sources, of which there are none). bonadea contributions talk 17:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 18:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 18:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose the deletion of the same the reason for the same are


 * 1- TOI is the supreme newspaper of India and its sources are applicable for the courts of India than Wikipedia must too accept it
 * 2- The film may not be notable to many as it is a regional film and in the East indian language which is a regional language
 * 3- The verifiers of wikipedia lack to justify the problems in my article u may visit my draft and check its history if I make corrections the other verifier undos the same which is unfair
 * 4- U can find sources of the film on the world wide Web or in many sites which i believe doesn't lakhs notability

As i have been repetitively saying my intentions are to expand the reach of Wikipedia to everyone its violation is my own violation so I don't entertain the same --†Ïv㉫Ǹ Ｇ✿Ǹ＄Aしv㉫＄ 09:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your good intentions are not in question even though it does look like you are ignoring the comments from multiple editors on your draft, but what you say above does not really address the main question: does the film meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for films or the general notability guideline? One of the AfC reviewers asked for at least four or five independent sources discussing the film in some depth; there are currently three sources (two of which have been added by another editor). Sources do not have to be in English, but they have to meet Wikipedia's reliable sources policy and as mentioned above, the city pages (as opposed to the main edition) of Times of India are usually considered to be less reliable in terms of showing notability. This is particularly true for entertainment news - and indeed, if you read this source it is rather clear that it is not particularly factual and unbiased - it reads like a rewrite of a press release from the movie makers. --bonadea contributions talk 11:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Writing an article is not vandalism in any sense of the word. The deeply flawed AFC process is entirely optional and no editor should be penalized for declining to go through that ordeal. Whether to delete this article should be debated on the notability of the topic.  There are legitimate claims of notability. This is the first film about the culture of the Roman Catholic East Indians and the first filmed in their own dialect. There is no basis in policy for insisting on four or five sources. I see no evidence that the Times of India coverage is a simple reprint of a press release. This Daily News and Analysis source is very good, and provides a different perspective on the film. It should be transformed from an external link into a reference.  Instead of being deleted, the article should be expanded and improved. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  01:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Replying to the comment above :- I am extremely sure that you are not an Indian citizen, here I belong to the same community that this film is released and I have cited as many as available resources for the film u want I can send u the movie personally so that u can believe. India has 1652 languages and all have equal status according to the law and by commenting disputes u do against article 14, 15 , 16, 21 , 25 of the Indian Constitution. By contesting u breach my Freedom of expression in India right. The film has been proved to exist as it has been on IMDB and I have seen many articles which have only one source and it has no deletion tag on it for eg Mother Teresa of Calcutta (film). My article has existence in real life and my community has witnessed it. The film had no objection on the Marathi Wikipedia and it was there created by an administrator there Mr:तू माझा जीव. My sincere request for you is please don't waste wikipedias time to tag it for deletion as it is baseless.As there is no mention that A local language film needs to prove notability -- ✝iѵ ɛɳ  २२४० †ลℓк †๏ мэ 04:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment It is of course possible to be disruptive when it comes to article creation, but the relevant issue here (as pointed out in the nomination) is notability. The article now shows borderline notability at best; we have no actual reliable sources showing that it is the first film in East Indian Marathi (the director claims that it is in newspaper interviews but secondary sources for that kind of claim would have been useful - I might be a bit picky about this because of my profession, but that's my opinion and interpretation of WP:RS anyway). The large audience numbers might be a stronger claim to notability; it would be good to get people who are more knowledgeable about Indian films to weigh in here. I also don't agree that the DNA India source is very good as far as coverage of the film goes - I had the same reaction when I first saw it, but then I realised that Tu Maza Jeev is only mentioned in passing. --bonadea contributions talk 15:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pointing out that it would be helpful if we had a better source claiming that this particular film was the first one to be filmed in a specific dialect does is not in any way a comment on the existence of the dialect. I have looked it up, I know that it is an existing varity of Marathi (or, according to some, Konkani). The nationality of any of the people involved in a discussion is wholly irrelevant, and Wikipedia versions in different languages have different notability policies. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 08:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

the main problem rises that Wikipedia doesn't has the article on East Indian language I have asked an administrator about the same if he permits I'll have an article on East Indian language so it will have no doubt in the dialect u want to know. For your reference u have a look at this article and let all your doubt gets clear and u too give a green signal for my article this Christmas season 😀👍
 * No, the existence of this article about a movie is completely unconnected to whether East Indian Marathi exists as a separate dialect. A well-sourced article about the dialect would be excellent - as I have already said I am fully aware of its existence, and I would be happy to assist you with better sources, since the one you linked to here does not meet Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources and should not be used as a source in Wikipedia. But again that has nothing to do with the article Tu Maza Jeev. Finally, I don't decide whether any article stays or remains. The way Wikipedia deletion discussions work is like this: One editor decides to nominate an article for deletion, and provides their reasons. Other editors weigh in and agree or disagree, based on Wikipedia policy. The administrator who closes the discussion does so in accordance with the consensus in the discussion, without adding their own opinion. --bonadea contributions talk 13:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

It will be a net gain!Mahveotm (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly a notable subject and needed just a little more references which have been included.


 * 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.