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. One might see a "keep" here is well, since Collect's is the only "delete" rationale that presents an argument--"no sources" doesn't work so well anymore after sourced are added. Drmies (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ghar Ka Chiraag (1967 film)

[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no sources (beyond external link to Imdb) where I found this film with a slightly different spelling: [1] which is mentioned in this book: [2]. Still nothing that will satisfy WP:NFILM. Gab4gab (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Endercase (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering that it's a 1967 Indian film the content and sourcing is sufficient.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's one of only three children's films made in 1967, and has a star cast of prominent Indian actors. Kaayay (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do agree that it has enough sourcing now, but I can't withdraw it per the one delete vote (I'm discounting the one that didn't have a rationale). Although I will say that creating an article with only an IMDb as a reference is unhelpful and would stop such nominations and work from happening if not done. SL93 (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now significantly expanded with other references. — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable - and being one of "three children's films" is not a "notability claim" per se. Basically, the issue is whether a film with several blue-linked BLPs is thus notable by virtue of those blue-links. Being in a comprehensive list of "world filmography" intrinsically includes non-notable films, as far as I can tell. A list of "Indian Films of 1967" also only provides a claim that the film exists, and is not a notability claim as such - more on the level of an en passant mention in a comprehensive list in the first place. The "madanmohan.in" site is SPS. "Update Video Publication"[3] appears not to be a notable publisher at all, and appears either to be SPS or Vanity Press as far as I can tell in this case. "Hindigeetmsla" is a source for lyrics for every possible Hindi song it can find (over 73,000 songs at least) - and is not a source for notability of a song nor of a film using a song. Thus, excluding "lists of everything" and SPS sites there are no sources directly bearing on this film at all which means it fails all notability guidelines, alas. Collect (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's good to see more sources added. They are helpful to verify some of the article content. However they don't do much to establish notability and I continue to favor delete. Having a notable cast or being an Indian film are not notability criteria. The sources found to date fit the examples of coverage that is insufficient at the bottom of WP:NFSOURCES. I agree with the analysis above by Collect. Gab4gab (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ssven2. Newimpartial (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would lead to a better consensus discussion if editors would point to specific sources that satisfy specific notability criteria. Simply arguing WP:LOTSOFSOURCES without addressing the specifics of opposing points of view isn't a helpful a dialog. Gab4gab (talk) 13:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 23:59, 5 June 2017 (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.