Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanrakshan

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Sanrakshan}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sanrakshan Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Sanrakshan}})

Can't find anything to support a claim to notability. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

:Comment

:: Here are some sources to claim its notability. [https://kathmandupost.com/art-entertainment/2017/07/21/sanrakshan-the-film-drops-first-song] [https://www.nepalisansar.com/entertainment/a-quick-glance-at-nepali-cinema-box-office-2018/] [https://xnepali.net/sanrakshan-to-feature-nikhil-upreti-ad-saugat-malla-in-ramesh-kharel-story/] [https://xnepali.net/friday-release-sanrakshan-nikhil-upreti/] [https://kathmandupost.com/opinion/2017/07/09/what-kollywood-gets-wrong]___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk (We are the champions, my friends) 12:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

:::{{ping|CAPTAIN MEDUSA}} thank you for digging, I did come across these during my BEFORE. Let's dive in:

:::# [https://xnepali.net/about-2/ xnepali.net] is a personal blog and should be actively purged, maybe even added to the spam blacklist.

:::# [https://www.nepalisansar.com/about/ nepalisansar.com] is a business startup based in USA that is clearly going for quantity over quality and has no journalistic credential. The most it has going for itself is that its About page is written in first person plural rather than singular, which is counterbalanced by the bad English (despite being based in the US). [https://www.nepalisansar.com/submit-your-post/ The Submit article page] clearly says it will accept self-promotional contributions from its audience as long as it is of wide interest, and also clearly indicates its editors (plural apparently) will bother fact-checking if the content liable to be controversial. So, without a clear indication that it takes it journalism seriously, it's not acceptable either. Note that it dubs this movie {{tq|the most (...) controversial of 2017}}. Where's the RS coverage of that controversy then (rhetorical)?

:::#That leaves us with two Kathmandu post (which is RS) articles which hardly take the movie past WP:CRYSTAL. The first one is a promotional/routine coverage of a song dropping that occured way before the film was released. The second one was an Op-Ed by an undergraduate student in the US on a broader issue, written solely on having watched the movie's trailer online. I am well-aware of the hardship involved in covering third-world topics here, and am way more lenient with the notability guidelines (evident by my tempered rate of AFD nomination). Although these particular sources wouldn't count an iota towards notability strictly speaking, I do give them some weight ("third world" argument again) as mentions on a national newspaper. But it's simply not enough.

:::(Rhetorical) Did the movie actually get released? Was it popular with critics? Audiences? Was it controversial? Was it taken note of for apparently covering a sensitive issues of politics and social justice?

:::The sources we have here are simply not good enough even considering the third world problem. This movie was in 2017, not ten years ago. Notable movies of the last decade do get decent coverage in actual RSes, even in Nepal.

:::Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 19:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

::::Comment While I generally think that {{u|Usedtobecool}} is correct in their analysis of the English-language sources, until there is some attempt to search in the film's language/script, we can't be certain it doesn't meet the requirements of GNG or NFILM. Unfortunately, my own attempts to approximate the film's title in Devanagari were ineffective. I will add to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Article alerts to see if that generates any expert input. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

:::::{{u|Eggishorn}}, :ne:संरक्षण (चलचित्र) is probably the article on Nepali Wikipedia, although it doesn't give enough context or a single source. Be careful with the google hits though, as Sanrakshan is a generic term for protection/preservation/conservation/etc. which means anything to do with helping the Nepali film industry would also be included in the results. I had found one link worth clicking: [https://saptahik.com.np/news/2017-08-11/20170810141417.html?fb_comment_id=1448409055253714_1448549155239704 this], which is SIGCOV but still from before the film's actual scheduled release; and without anything else, I deemed it insufficient to get the film over GNG. I think one more RS SIGCOV from after the film's actual release (which must have happened) would be enough, which I couldn't find. No opinion whether more coverage from before the film's premiere would also do the trick. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Per Nom as not notable. Five sources were given but these were debunked by the Nom and User:Eggishorn agrees but hoping more is "out there" and it seems feels concerned there is a language barrier issue which is likely. The article either has less than reliable sources or the same source as repeat which does not add to notability. I will offer that something can be considered generally notable in one area or location (such as Nepal) but not in another area or country which means not everything from one Wikipedia will necessarily be world-wide notable to be in the enwiki or others. If nobody else can weigh in with independent reliable sources providing significant coverage then it just isn't world-wide notable. Other than a good faith search it is not the burden of those checking to be able to also determine the notability but the proof is according to WP:VERIFY. Otr500 (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep — There are many sources: Film talks about Madhes Movement [https://www.hamropatro.com/posts/articles-Film-Review/articles-Film-Review-sanrakshan-trailer] [https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2017/03/564007], Nikhil Upreti's first collab with Saugat Malla [http://ratopati.com/story/1900], has soundtrack [https://ekantipur.com/entertainment/2017/07/20/20170720083558.html] [http://www.filmykhabar.com/news/13848/] [http://www.nagariktimes.com/2018/02/33812/] ,Upreti's comeback film after 4 year of break [https://www.hotpati.com/2019/08/03/21/10052/] ,it premired [https://www.himalkhabar.com/news/4872], had budget of 1 crore 40 lakhs [http://annapurnapost.com/news/77121], it got reviewed [https://nepalmag.com.np/news/2017-08-18/20170818191116.html] [https://kathmandupost.com/opinion/2017/07/09/what-kollywood-gets-wrong], it won award 3 Dcine Award [https://www.onlinekhabar.com/2018/05/681406]. Merging all this together surely could make a start-class article. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 13:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• :{{u|CAPTAIN MEDUSA}}, merging it all would be a mistake as most of these are miles from reliable. That said, although it's still not past GNG, [15] is a legit review that I hadn't found and assuming Dcine Award is a legit major award (I'm not really up to date on who all are giving out awards in Nepali cinema nowadays), I think we have enough to Keep it. Thanks for your hard work. I'd say, please try to be more selective with your sources, but your process clearly has merits too. Cheers! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 15:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep I also thank {{u|CAPTAIN MEDUSA}} for their diligence. Only the nepalmag.com.np and Khanthmandu Post articles, however, appear to be significant coverage about this film. The other references are not significantly about the film or very short announcements of, e.g., release dates. That said, two reviews, including in the biggest daily newspaper in the film's home country, are enough to qualify as notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.