Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/When Brummies Met Sindhis


 * 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. Black Kite 00:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

When Brummies Met Sindhis

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable film lacking GHits or GNEW. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM.  ttonyb (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Even accepting that documentary films rarely get the coverage that do big studio blockbusters, I am unable to find any RS for this film. No awards. No coverage. Perhaps suitable for a redirect to the filmmaker Azfar Rizvi ...maybe... but an article on him does not exist.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Modified my opinion per the continued efforts of User:EssRiz, which are underscoring the terrific difficulties faced in sourcing a Pakistani film, documentary or not, with English sources. I am willing to accept in good faith that he will continue his search for sources and will present them as he finds them.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – I certainly understand the importance of including worthy subjects; however, notability has not been established via the use of reliable sources. I've seen the argument used in conjunction with other articles in AfD that the lack of normalized support avenues used by Wikipedia are few and far between; however, that argument is never supported by valid alternative avenues of reliable sources that might approach the Wikipedia criteria.  As I review the references associated with the article I see only one that might independently support the article - the Dawn Newspaper review.  All the others do not reference the film or are not independent sources. I just don't see how this meets the criteria for notability.  ttonyb  (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * @ User:Ttonyb1: Yes, at en.Wikipedia we have many problems in showing English-notability for films from non-English countries.  It is an unfortunate bias inherent in that the majority of editors at en.Wikipedia are themselves from English speaking/reading countries... not all.... but a great majority.  Such is the problem of even an unintended anglo-centricism, and I am not tossing mud at anyone... only acknowleding the problem.  For instance, consider WP:NF's stating "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics".  As written, the caveat gives greater weight to films that have the bigger budgets or the greater press toward commercial profit through their theatrical release and distribution... unfortunately assigning a greater burden to films from non-English countries and to documentaries that are not themselves theatrically/commercially released films.  While accepting that such a caveat is fine for a domestic release of a major studio's or even an independent's film, the guideline seems specifically inclined to give preference to those films intended for a commercial market, it would be quite tough for a Pakistani educational documentary to get reviews from "nationally known critics".  We do have at least one RS that sources the article and an an editor determined to improve the article.   WP:CSB was set up in attempts to level the playing field... and I do understand how very difficult is their task.  Given this, our setting aside Anglo-centric doubts would serve to improve the project.  I believe that since we do have at least the one RS, it serves the project in this case to be patient and allow additional, even if non-English, sources to be brought to an article as they become available.  Few article are created already perfect and without flaw.  As this one is showing itself to be a work-in-progress that is getting better edit-by-edit, why not let it continued to be worked on? The Article might always be revisited in a few months and returned to AFD.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Oh Michael, you are just too wonderful! Thanks so much, once again. I have been in contact with the university officials from Bahria University and Greenwich University, which are both established private universities in Karachi. They have confirmed that filmmaker Azfar Rizvi is a professor of media and communication studies at their respective schools, and that When Brummies Met Sindhis (among some of his other films) is a part of their curriculum in that department. However, there is no system of posting the curriculum online, in order for it to be visible by everyone. This is understandable but rather unfortunate. I am working with them on this, though, and hopefully something can materialize soon enough that will supplement the current sources available. On a separate note, it's crazy over here. I am originally from Canada, and the system is incomparable - media, education, you name it. Fundamental structural flaws manage to cripple whatever little progression is made in any of Pakistan's facets. There are exceptions, but very few. In agreement to your response, the only thing I can say is that expecting articles on films from a 'developing' third-world country to live up to the manageable standards available in and of that of a developed first-world country is unfair. And I am truly grateful for the good faith that you have in me :) just one, tiny correction - I am not a 'he'! Warm wishes :) EssRiz (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete insufficient evidence of notability. Mukadderat (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks Michael for pointing out that documentary films rarely get the coverage that big studio blockbusters do. Add to this the fact that this is a third-world production with just a fraction of resources and media presence available to us, when compared to that of big players like the States or the UK. I'm still in the process of working on this article to add more information about the film, and the ways in which it has contributed to society. This will cater to the very argument that there is no coverage. There are many documentary films, pieces of written work, paintings, other forms of creative expression all the across the world that I may be unaware of. But I am aware of the disparity that exists in terms of accessibility and media presence for different countries. Hence, just because I don't know about it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist or isn't notable. There are many things that I have learned just by browsing Wikipedia, as opposed to coming across them somewhere else. As much as this may sound like an ode to Wikipedia, that is just how good this information portal really is! Please bear this mind while recommending your chosen course of action. Thanks much! EssRiz (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To EssRiz... With respects, I have a pretty decent personal track record for rescuing articles just like this... articles about minor or documentary or independent or short films... films with small or non-existant budgets and/or from non-western filmmakers... this through my researching, sourcing, cleaning up, and ultimately delivering back to folks in these discussions the results of my labors. Yes, the big films get the press. Yes, their articles are usually quite easy to improve. But it is because their lessor brethren do not get the coverage of their big-monied cousins that I work extra hard... and is why I can sincerely appreciate that you are working as hard as well. If the article is not improved in time to meet the concerns toward sourcing and notability, by all means please request from whomever closes this discussion that it might be userfied to you in a workspace such as User:EssRiz/workspace/When Brummies Met Sindhis. I do not anticipate any problems in it being moved so that improvements can continue.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael, I commend you for everything that you have accomplished in this regard. It is very inspiring to come across people who are willing to invest time and energy for a worthy cause, without getting anything of material significance in return. I've been collecting more information in the past few days. The notability factor seems a tad bit limiting but I am working on researching, as well as sourcing. Thanks for everything so far. I really appreciate both your kind words of encouragement, and the advice that you have given. Warm regards :) EssRiz (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm on it! I am trying my best to ensure that I use only that research and resources which on some level, follow the Wikipedia advisory. Thanks for your patience! EssRiz (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – There are certain criteria that need to be met in order to insure the quality of Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are supported by reliable sources that support verifiability, not truth. There is a difference between "real-world" notability and Wikipedia notability, per Wikipedia guidelines if it cannot be verified, it is not notable.   ttonyb  (talk) 04:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 01:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  Keep  A significant amount of information about the film and several contextual components has been added to the article. Notable resources, following the Wikipedia advisory on notability have been added as well. Please keep the article! Thanks much :) EssRiz (talk) 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note to EssRiz. With respects, I have struck your second !vote, while keeping your comment. I will revisit the article now, but please know its only one vote per editor, but you are always welcome to coment.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Michael, no worries :) I actually wasn't aware about the one vote limitation. Take care! EssRiz (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * EssRiz, as you may have noticed, I just went through the article... giving it some cleanup, correcting the reference format and the internal wikilinks. The film seems to be a very worthwhile project... but an issue that editors will point out is that the film itself does not (yet) have reliable sources speaking specifically about it or reviews about the film itself. As this may easily change as the films is further distributed, I would still encourage it be userfied to you for continued care. One of the things to keep in mind is that notability criteria for films allows that even without significant coverage, it might be found notable if it proves to be historically notable, wins awards, is accepted into a national archive, or becomes part of the sylabus at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Michael, thanks for the cleanup! It looks much better now. I have a question for you. After reviewing your comment, I have highlighted the film's review by Bina Shah, who is a renowned Pakistani journalist and writer under the film's synopsis. Maybe I am not using this source efficiently enough for it to be considered? As well, I am pretty sure that the film is also part of the curriculum across media studies courses at several universities in Karachi. I will have to look into that though, and update the article as soon as I come across something. Thanks for all your help so far :) Take care! EssRiz (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reviews best belong in a "Reception" section. I moved it there and included a direct quote from Bina Shah. Keep up the good efforts.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 07:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Just crept over into Keep - cognizant of the efforts of two editors to bring up to standard the background and information on this documentary. Both the subject matter and the form are worthy of interest, though I would suggest rearranging the entry into more standard format, starting with a synopsis of the film, factual background, and then the British council funding arrangements in that order. Moloch09 (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – What bothers me is the lack of reliable sources. As I review the references associated with the article I see only one that might independently support the article - the Dawn Newspaper review.  All the others do not reference the film or are not independent sources. I just don't see how this meets the criteria for notability.  ttonyb  (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply I'm bothered too - but not to the point of 'delete'. I'm waiting for more substance and cross references, but the article seems to be receiving the right attention from editors, so my inclination is to let them continue with their work, Moloch09 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Dear Moloch, thank you so much for your appreciation! I will get to work on the rearrangement as per your suggestion as soon as possible. Unannounced power outages have taken over this city! I really like your idea of following the standard format. Thing is, I am new here, and learning just a little bit more every day! Take care and have a good one! Warm wishes :) EssRiz (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, This Documentary is not noteable enough to have an article on the English Wikipedia IMO. The Director/producer have no real fame; maybe wait and see how this film does at these festivals. Lets at least hear some critical feedback and please get some realiable sources.-- intraining  Jack In  18:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Opinion not reached - I can't come up with an opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whenaxis (talk • contribs) 12:24, 4 April 2010 (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.