Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saksham - everyone is capable

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 delete. Sandstein 08:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saksham - everyone is capable

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PR piece created by a social media marketeer who along with promoting clients has also been doing self promotion. On the face of it, this looks like it has reasonable references, but then on deeper look (English and Hindi) it's completely based on regurgitated press releases. The Tribune piece is in it's internet section "Gyan Zone" which is for user submitted content, the Punjab Kesari (Hindi) piece is in the local entertainment section as a PR piece, The Dainik Jagran link is also a web consolidation of the PR piece. There's also been a lot of socking involved with different socks addressing different article groups (some of which is visible in the history of this article and that of the director/creator) —SpacemanSpiff 07:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 07:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 07:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'"' per nom. Clubjustin (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional piece with no independent sources. --regentspark (comment) 14:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Also, it does not satisfy any of the criteria laid out in WP:NF. No reviews. Neither the actors nor the producers/directors are significant. Not yet released. And no independent sources that assert its notability. --regentspark (comment) 16:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon it seems, not yet convincing for a Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 04:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking:

filmmaker:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

music/camera/editor:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INDAFD: Saksham Everyone is Capable Snehil Sharma Akhil Kumar Yadav &gsc.sort= Inside Motion Pictures

~~Keep~~ as filming has begun and the project is getting some actual coverage in reliable sources. For instance, Tribune India is a news article, not PR schlock. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- - Um. The Tribune article is the very definition of PR schlock. Almost every statement in that article is attributed to someone on the film. All it is saying is that the film concept exists because the director says so. And it is likely that the writer of the article hasn't even seen the film. --regentspark (comment) 17:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have explained above Tribune's Gyan Zone is submissions area. —SpacemanSpiff 05:17, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you stated so above and no offense, but where does it say Gyan Zone is so anywhere besides you saying so in this discussion? THIS is somewhat enlightening. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And I do dislike the multiple press releases improperly used in the WP:COI of article author Snehilsharma, but Newznew appears to be authored and independent, as does Mangla Times, United News of India, Web India 123, and some others. Author should really study WP:NOTABOUTYOU. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have to call any of this a PR hack, their PR agency has already done so, slides 3,4 -- "News based announcements" (read: paid news, which is why Gyan zone isn't part of the print version of Tribune) and have cited this as an example further down. The above link to Newznew is obviously not reliable -- "A New concept cropped up “NewZNew.com”. Presenting first news as it happens. The only thought of presenting without twisting and as quickly as possible. My own initiative is to collect information, analyse and present. Welcome to NewZnew !", just a blog with a domain name run by cpgrafix.in. There's also the fact that cpgrafix.in was involved in another paid COI PR hack on here, I can't remember which one, maybe Brianhe has memory of it. —SpacemanSpiff 03:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall this name. Maybe you were thinking of the fake newspaper Bangalorean? At any rate, E-cell, cpgrafix and newznew appear to all be the same individuals as described here which should be taken into account when evaluating sources. Brianhe (talk) 07:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --QEDK (T ☕ C) 11:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Allow this one back only if it receives irrefutable coverage. Struck my keep above. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.