Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garud Puran (2019 film)

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. I'm disregarding Azkord and Binod's comments; leaving that, delete she goes Lourdes 04:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garud Puran (2019 film)

Garud Puran (2019 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails

An example is this source which mentions a single line about the release of trailer; regurgitates the details (cast, release date et al) of the film and the amount of pictures far exceeds the volume of written stuff.

The rest of references amount to trivial routine PR-coverage in entertainment-sections of sources and gossip-sites. The generalized stuff (the above ref or this) is like ....the first look/ the trailer/the first song of the film is out.....This film features XYZ and directed by ABC....Story is written by JKL and choreographed by MNO....

KathmanduPost has devoted a single paragraph about the first looks of the film on 20th November. It's quite early to be on Wikipedia.......

∯WBG^converse 14:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was thinking that this user will add more afd on the pages i created. This is just an personal attack like he did on
  talk) 14:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep WBG is doing personal attack. --Binod Basnet (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Having trouble confirming that the film will be released, there =also seems to be a tad of over linking which makes me dubious about any real notability.Slatersteven (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - The Kathmandu Times appears to be an RS and has two article related to this film. It has started shooting. There appears to be a strong likelihood of
  WP:NEXIST we should keep. Article is very poor quality but AFD is not clean-up. I see no evidence whatsoever that this is a personal attack, that accusation should be withdrawn. FOARP (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: this is the Kathmandu Times, the only reliable and independent source the article references. It's a "first look" article. One source isn't enough to establish
  And that's what Wikipedia's not. I agree with FOARP: Azkord you need to realise that WBG is putting forward reasonable arguments and you don't counter those with false accusations. SITH (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

How can you say that Kathmandu Post is only reliable? Ujyaloonlline, Nagarik News, setopati, ratopati & rajhdani news are large and independent reliable sources of Nepal.

talk) 01:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Azkord, sorry it's taken me so long to reply. I must admit, I've only been to Nepal once and the Kathmandu Times was the only publication cited here that I encountered, but obviously I realise that reliable sources which I don't know about exist. However, the URLs of the other ones you mention seem to bear the hallmarks of redtop / tabloid publications in their use of language (I'm using Google Translate, so it might not be 100% accurate but there are definitely tonal differences between KT and NN, for example). My !vote is a weak delete, so if you could convince me that one of the other cited sources is considered reliable, I'd be willing to change my mind. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you were only reviewing english sources here are some of the new english articles [1][2] and about those Nepali links which i mentioned before are totally independent according to

Talk 05:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - in-creation notability isn't sufficiently established. @FOARP: - we can't just assume there is going to be reliable sourcing available. No prejudice against re-creation. Azkord and Binod you are falsely accusing an editor - please remove your accusations, in the case of Binod, yours isn't a !vote at all. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Trailer has been already released and all the sources provided on the article by me are independent and reliable. so it's notable to be kept.
  Talk 12:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]