Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tishnagi

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. Sandstein 10:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tishnagi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has full independent reviews in reliable sources including The Times of India shown here and Eenadu shown here, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not, reviews by newspapers nowhere support either GNG or NFILM which required full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics not newspapers. This is your own invention and you must seek consensus on this before !voting in AfDs. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- You received clarification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Newspaper reviews here that nationally published independent full film reviews count for both WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. If a film critic writes in a national newspaper then he is nationally known, not because he has payed his fees to join a critics association or because an editor doesn't rate him, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

agree with above. User:GSS any reply to this ? --DBigXray 10:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has some references from Times of India shown here,Box Office India shown here,Bollywood Hungama shown here,NDTV shown here,Deccan Herald shown here And Hindustan (newspaper) shown here,which is reliable source. thanks Jolly gupta (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I thought this would be a straight keep, but most of the reviews above are more interviews etc. However ETimes Review and Eenadu Review (Beware, the translation is...interesting) satisfy the requirements in my view. Atlantic306 is correct as per newspaper reviews. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with User:Nosebagbear based on my review of the references above and in the article. passess WP:NFILMS per 2 notable actors and coverage in media. User:GSS Can you write a table comment rebutting the refs. I will be willing to reconsider the vote. --DBigXray 10:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: The soruces mentioned above and in the article are mostly about the actor Rajpal Yadav not about the film except the two reviews which is way to far from establishing notability in my views. GSS (talk|c|em) 11:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi GSS, I claim notability per WP:NFILM, 2 notable actors and these sources which are 3 major newspapers in India [1] [2][3] --DBigXray 12:31, 6 August 2018 (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.