Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ujwadu Konkani 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 no consensus. The argument that WP:CRYSTAL applied was rebutted, leaving "weak delete" and "weak keep" arguments. I considered relisting, but frankly, a foreign language film that most native English speaker can't even pronounce is unlikely to draw much participation. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ujwadu Konkani Film

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

Fails notability under WP:Notability (films). References included are either not reliable or are non-germane. Thorncrag 03:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. It looks like this has gotten some coverage [1], but not enough from reliable sources to show notability. I have a feeling that there might be a lot more in the native language, however, so I'm of the "weak delete" opinion. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A recently released non-English film. Tokyogirl79 found at least one source and the article asserts others. After doing some work I may be back to offer a stronger "keep". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen based on a lack of present coverage in reliable sources. WP:TOOSOON may apply, equally Wikpedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Pol430 talk to me 22:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We do not delete based upon current state. And English-languge coverage for a Konkani-language film will be expectedly sparse... specially as the article itsef asserts that only two other Konkani-language films have ever been produced,[2] making this quite uniquely the third-ever film produced in that language. As the film was cleared and rated by its regional censor board in August 2011,[3] and was released in Novemer 2011, it is not a matter of WP:CRYSTAL, it becomes a matter of giving a new article about a unique film time to grow and improve through regular editing. This is not the English-language-topic-only Wikipdia, and in considering it being the third-ever film ever produced in its language, I look at "The film represents a unique accomplishment in cinema, is a milestone in the development of film art, or contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema", my understanding it need not be a unique milestone only in the Western world, and per WP:CSB am perhaps a bit more patient in wishing it time to be improved. An incubation might even be a consideration, but not a flat and outright deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.