- 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. The consensus is to Keep this article but the nominator has taken issue with the sources presented. However, there is no support for deleting this article so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The Hundred Bucks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film. Was made by an editor blocked for sockpuppeting. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM as it has not received 2 reviews from major publications considered reliable by our standards. Jupitus Smart 03:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if we consider the Times of India article, the Filminformation source is just a blog and not considered reliable according to our standards WP:ICTFSOURCES. It would therefore not pass the standard for 2 reviews from reliable sources. The BOI page is just a random information page with some information without any basis - like the fact that it grossed about $1200 USD over its entire run. Jupitus Smart 13:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- For a better assessment of Film Information, see their page bottom About Us or read this, or Komal Nahta. -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 14:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Komal Nahta owning Filminformation does not impart any automatic notability to the website as notability is not inherited. And looking at the review's quality it appears to not have been written by Komal Nahta (it just mentions Filminformation as the author) compared to other articles like this - [1] which explicitly mentions him as the author. Also I don't think UNBumf which you quote in Komal's defence is also just a blog and not in our list of reliable sources. Jupitus Smart 15:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if Komal Nahta was not the author, he is the publisher of what a few lines above you called a ’blog’. Komal Nahta does not need anyone’s defence, it was just for information. -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 15:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- All I am saying is Komal Nahta is not so big a deal that an website he publishes would be deemed noteworthy. India's best critics can be seen here National Film Award for Best Film Critic - which includes the likes of Namrata Joshi and Baradwaj Rangan. A look at the quality of the review would burnish why it is no better than an ordinary blog. Best. Jupitus Smart 17:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Also refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maheshworld which concerns this. The writing is probably done by a paid syndicate as the original author of the article was also a sockpuppet Jupitus Smart 15:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoever the page creator might be, this film does seem notable to me and I think it meets criteria for notabiltiy. And I will leave it at that, if I may, thank you. -MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 15:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found this review [2] in Hindi(?). Gtranslate shows it's a small article with some critical comment. Seems fine. The source isn't listed in our reliable source list. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2023 (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.