867:
up to 2000 would not deserve a
Knowledge article, because sadly, no such information is available online for the most part. Similarly, a great majority of articles on films in general would not justify a Knowledge article. I thus disagree with this sentiment, and I find it to be a misinterpretation (no offence intended) of the notability guideline. I believe in the importance of verifiability of course, and as you see, it has been achieved considerably now. What makes Knowledge special, in my opinion, is the opportunity to gather information from all sources available and the potential it creates for further improvement and addition of information. Personally I think deleting film articles is really against the spirit of Knowledge. I think that all films the existence of which is not doubted, particularly those made by notable directors, starring notable actors, and having even minimal online coverage, merit a Knowledge article.
789:. The creator of this article has been active on Wiki since being asked to share their thoughts on the matter but has chosen not to do so, indicating that they are maintaining a neutral opinion regarding the deletion. The article in its current state is an IMDB stub and no sources have been found online in Hindi or English to back-up the article's contents. In the future if someone truly passionate about the film or the actors in it chooses to recreate the article with old reliable sources then praise but a futuristic possibility isn't a strong enough reason to currently keep the article.
806:. This is a mainstream Bollywood film with a well-known director and cast. There are various websites that give technical details, synopsis of the plot, lyrics etc., so the content is verifiable. There can be no doubt that the film would have been reviewed in all the main magazines at the time, but the film is in the dead zone between the "classic" and "internet" eras, so we cannot see these reviews online. A film buff with access to the offline sources may well choose to pump up the article. Meanwhile, it has some use in its rudimentary state.
434:) Speaking about notability first... A movie hardly classifies as notable when all its Wiki article includes is the name of the director, original release date and the names of four cast members whose character names haven't even been listed. Secondly, as a matter of fact I have searched the net for reliable sources related to the movie and have turned up with zilch. However, if you feel that the movie is indeed significant, you are more than welcome to further develop and improve the page. Currently though, the article fails the GNG's. Cheers
765:- I, on the other hand, do think that films are notable, especially films by renowned directors, and Bhattacharya is one. One of the biggest problems with Hindi films, particularly of that era, is the lack of coverage available online, but let's see, I've started looking for some references, maybe it could be kept eventually.
847:
I still stand by my nomination. Even with the new edits the page is still a stub record of the various technical specs regarding the movie which has already been done by IMDB, with all the technical details, pictures of scenes, cast names, the works. What makes Wiki different is the in-depth coverage
586:
I don't want to sound condescending here because I actually think that the point you have put forward is quite valid. At the same time however, it makes me wonder that for an article that has remained undeveloped since it's creation more than a decade ago, what is the realistic probability of someone
448:
The notability of a movie has nothing to do with the quality of the
Knowledge article. There could be no article, but the movie could still be notable. Or there could be only a very poor article, as is the case here. The article should only be deleted if the movie itself is clearly not notable. Since
648:
If an editor sees a film stub and has access to a relevant film review, they may well click and add a summary of the review to the article, which is easy. If there is no article, they less likely to start a new article and add the information, which is harder. But if the article has previously been
866:
is very poor there. Third, if we were to follow your logic that film articles without information on "timelines in production, character descriptions, critical reception, box office performance, distribution" do not deserve a Wiki article, then the great majority of Indian films except for very few
564:
might decide to use the reviews to create or pump up the articles on films these actors starred in. If they get the red wall of death on a creation attempt, they will be discouraged. That will not help our readers, who may want to know more about these notable films. The only reason to delete an
530:
I don't have access to any offline sources but having studied Hindi for my O-levels I carried out a web search for the film in the form of मधु मालती and मधुमालती and not a single match has come up. Given the age of the movie, finding in-depth coverage in secendary sources is highly unlikely. Not
500:
does not say they have searched for any Hindi-language sources, online or offline. If they have only searched online for
English sources this AfD is invalid and a waste of time. Given the cast, director etc. it would be very unlikely that the film would not have been discussed in depth by the
396:
The IMDB link does nothing to establish notability but goes a long way towards verifying the information. Before nominating an article for deletion, an editor should check for sources that would establish notability. Better to improve than delete an article on a notable subject. The question to
694:
They are, of course, recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page. Most editors would stop right there. Mainstream films are always noted at time of release, and the reviews are unlikely to have completely disappeared. Far better to fix up the stub as far as possible, as
616:
pls correct me if i'm wrong here, as long as a title isn't salted, recreation of a previously deleted article is very much possible so long as the editor understands why the previous article was deleted and the new article is able to conform to the Wiki guidelines.
965:
though I can’t judge the depth of the coverage. I’m aware though that Google does not index Indian topics very well. WikiProject India use to have custom searches specifically to deal with this problem but I can’t seem to find them. Are they still available?
959:
848:
of the various aspects in making a notable movie: timelines in production, character descriptions, critical reception, box office performance, distribution etc, all of which is still missing from the article. But hey, this is just my point of view.
720:
I don’t disagree what what you say but in my experience, such arguments carry little weight in deletion discussions. Far better to find sources (as others have been doing), just two good quality ones - reliable, independent, in-depth - will do.
531:
commenting on the notability of the film itself, but the
Knowledge article in its current state is basically a mirror of the film's IMDB page and what's the point in having a mirror here when the original is present at IMDB.
665:
If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed
210:
245:. Not a single reference has been cited throughout the body and the article is more or less a mirror of the film's IMDB page. Has also been tagged for improvement for the past year, without any results.
449:
this is a Hindi movie, a search limited to
English sources is unlikely to be particularly relevant. Again, the question is whether the nominator has searched for sources about मधु मालती or Madhumālatī.
634:
Things have moved on a bit, I see, since I was here last but I’ll quickly answer this. There would no bar to recreation though issues identified in a deletion discussion would need to be addressed. --
748:
Knowledge is built on verifiability. Unless you present an actual Hindi source that is a reliable source showing coverage we have no reason to show deference to your claim that such sources exist.
699:
has done with this one, and hope more content will be added later. Deletion is a blunt instrument that should be used only when an article is harmful or the subject clearly cannot be notable.
955:
163:
368:: The article is an unreferenced stub, but that is not a reason for deletion. The cast is impressive. Has the nominator searched for sources about मधु मालती or Madhumālatī?
204:
282:
1037:
as the article has been improved with the addition of references to multiple reliable sources coverage so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view,
262:
110:
95:
862:
First, more sources have been found and added now. Second, you're wrong about IMDb - none of the information I've added appears on IMDB - the
827:
the article. Its verifiability has improved, I believe. I invite those who have voted to delete it to have a look and reconsider their stand.
170:
136:
131:
90:
83:
17:
649:
deleted, it takes an editor with very strong nerves to recreate the article. When they go to start it they see something like:
431:
140:
59:
225:
1025:
192:
123:
104:
100:
954:
I've been doing some searches using the title and the variants suggested + Sachin + Sarika. I find some snippets: in
984:
1097:
753:
387:
356:
40:
675:
186:
1021:
794:
622:
596:
536:
904:
853:
439:
290:
270:
250:
382:
Knowledge has as one of its principals verifiability. We cannot justify having any unreferenced articles.
1093:
1042:
182:
36:
1080:
1063:
1046:
1029:
1002:
975:
946:
937:
918:
909:
897:
878:
857:
838:
815:
798:
776:
757:
730:
708:
643:
626:
600:
588:
574:
540:
514:
484:
458:
443:
410:
391:
377:
360:
339:
319:
294:
274:
254:
65:
863:
475:
The nominator has said they carried out searches. Have you carried out searches? What did you find? --
1059:
971:
782:
749:
726:
639:
502:
480:
383:
352:
998:
560:
335:
315:
232:
218:
811:
790:
704:
631:
618:
592:
570:
552:
The stars are well known by many of our older readers. An editor with a stash of back numbers of
547:
532:
510:
454:
425:
406:
373:
849:
497:
435:
398:
286:
266:
246:
79:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1092:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1038:
127:
1076:
1055:
967:
722:
635:
613:
565:
article is that the subject clearly is not notable. That is highly unlikely in this case.
491:
476:
307:
242:
587:
coming in and improving the article in the future. What does the creator of this article
198:
994:
331:
311:
1017:
1013:
887:
868:
828:
807:
766:
715:
700:
696:
671:
581:
566:
506:
450:
421:
402:
369:
53:
157:
119:
71:
1072:
1020:
has added a vast number of sources, including several film encyclopedias.
401:
is whether they have searched for sources about मधु मालती or Madhumālatī.
554:
908:
the other day with the same rationale, "not an imdb mirror, lacks RS".†
936:
Thanks to the effort of Shahid, clearly meets notability guidelines.†
956:
Screen World
Publication's 75 Glorious Years of Indian Cinema (1988)
785:
and keeping all the points stated above in mind, I cast my vote as
306:
a search found nothing to support this film's notability. Fails
1088:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
501:
Hindi-language film magazines of the time, as indeed it was.
987:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
661:
A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.
883:
824:
153:
149:
145:
217:
330:, changing vote due to newly found/added citations.
993:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1100:). No further edits should be made to this page.
281:Note: This discussion has been included in the
261:Note: This discussion has been included in the
351:Knowledge is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.
231:
8:
1071:Newly found sources establish notability. --
111:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
680:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Madhu Malti
283:list of India-related deletion discussions
280:
260:
263:list of Film-related deletion discussions
1054:meets the GNG; AfD is not clean up. --
241:A stub article that fails to satisfy
7:
24:
612:It is my understanding that, and
679:
96:Introduction to deletion process
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1081:22:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
1064:06:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
1047:22:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
1030:15:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
1003:15:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
976:23:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
947:14:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
919:16:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
898:15:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
879:14:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
858:14:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
839:13:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
816:13:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
799:13:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
777:12:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
758:11:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
731:23:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
709:22:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
644:22:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
627:03:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
601:03:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
575:02:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
541:02:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
515:00:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
340:19:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
66:19:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
1:
485:22:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
459:01:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
444:01:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
411:21:26, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
392:17:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
378:13:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
361:13:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
320:19:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
295:16:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
275:16:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
255:16:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
886:done since my last update.
86:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1117:
1090:Please do not modify it.
670:23:31, 9 September 2020
591:have to say about this?
32:Please do not modify it.
823:- Okay, I did my best
505:may care to comment.
84:Articles for deletion
905:Kahin Aar Kahin Paar
1022:AleatoryPonderings
1005:
750:John Pack Lambert
384:John Pack Lambert
353:John Pack Lambert
297:
277:
101:Guide to deletion
91:How to contribute
64:
1108:
992:
990:
988:
944:
916:
894:
875:
835:
773:
719:
585:
551:
495:
236:
235:
221:
173:
161:
143:
81:
56:
34:
1116:
1115:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1098:deletion review
1006:
983:
981:
938:
910:
888:
869:
829:
783:Johnpacklambert
767:
713:
685:
579:
545:
503:Johnpacklambert
489:
178:
169:
134:
118:
115:
78:
75:
62:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1114:
1112:
1103:
1102:
1084:
1083:
1066:
1049:
1032:
991:
980:
979:
978:
949:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
842:
841:
818:
801:
779:
760:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
684:
683:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
604:
603:
577:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
496:The nominator
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
415:
414:
413:
363:
345:
344:
343:
342:
299:
298:
278:
239:
238:
175:
114:
113:
108:
98:
93:
76:
74:
69:
58:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1113:
1101:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1086:
1085:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1050:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1033:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1004:
1000:
996:
989:
986:
977:
973:
969:
964:
962:
957:
953:
950:
948:
945:
943:
942:
941:Encyclopædius
935:
932:
931:
920:
917:
915:
914:
913:Encyclopædius
907:
906:
902:They deleted
901:
900:
899:
895:
893:
892:
885:
882:
881:
880:
876:
874:
873:
865:
861:
860:
859:
855:
851:
846:
845:
844:
843:
840:
836:
834:
833:
826:
822:
819:
817:
813:
809:
805:
802:
800:
796:
792:
791:TheRedDomitor
788:
784:
781:I agree with
780:
778:
774:
772:
771:
764:
761:
759:
755:
751:
747:
744:
743:
732:
728:
724:
717:
712:
711:
710:
706:
702:
698:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
681:
677:
674:deleted page
673:
672:User:Aymatth2
669:
668:
667:
663:
662:
647:
646:
645:
641:
637:
633:
632:TheRedDomitor
630:
629:
628:
624:
620:
619:TheRedDomitor
615:
611:
608:
607:
606:
605:
602:
598:
594:
593:TheRedDomitor
590:
589:Encyclopædius
583:
578:
576:
572:
568:
563:
562:
557:
556:
549:
548:TheRedDomitor
544:
543:
542:
538:
534:
533:TheRedDomitor
529:
516:
512:
508:
504:
499:
493:
488:
487:
486:
482:
478:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
460:
456:
452:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
433:
430:
427:
423:
419:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
395:
394:
393:
389:
385:
381:
380:
379:
375:
371:
367:
364:
362:
358:
354:
350:
347:
346:
341:
337:
333:
329:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
317:
313:
310:
309:
305:
296:
292:
288:
284:
279:
276:
272:
268:
264:
259:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
244:
234:
230:
227:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
184:
181:
180:Find sources:
176:
172:
168:
165:
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:
112:
109:
106:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
88:
87:
85:
80:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
61:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1089:
1087:
1068:
1051:
1034:
1009:
982:
960:
951:
940:
939:
933:
912:
911:
903:
890:
889:
871:
870:
864:film's entry
850:Sunshine1191
831:
830:
820:
803:
786:
769:
768:
762:
745:
664:
660:
659:
609:
559:
553:
527:
498:Sunshine1191
436:Sunshine1191
428:
417:
399:Sunshine1191
365:
348:
327:
303:
301:
300:
287:Sunshine1191
267:Sunshine1191
247:Sunshine1191
240:
228:
222:
214:
207:
201:
195:
189:
179:
166:
77:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1039:Atlantic306
961:Indian Film
676:Madhu Malti
205:free images
120:Madhu Malti
72:Madhu Malti
1056:Goldsztajn
968:Malcolmxl5
723:Malcolmxl5
636:Malcolmxl5
614:Malcolmxl5
492:Malcolmxl5
477:Malcolmxl5
1094:talk page
995:Barkeep49
884:More work
825:to expand
332:Donaldd23
312:Donaldd23
37:talk page
1096:or in a
1018:Shshshsh
985:Relisted
808:Aymatth2
716:Aymatth2
701:Aymatth2
697:Shshshsh
582:Aymatth2
567:Aymatth2
561:Stardust
555:Filmfare
528:Comment:
507:Aymatth2
451:Aymatth2
432:contribs
422:Aymatth2
418:Replying
403:Aymatth2
370:Aymatth2
366:Question
308:WP:NFILM
243:WP:NFILM
164:View log
105:glossary
54:Eddie891
39:or in a
952:Comment
821:Comment
746:Comment
211:WP refs
199:scholar
137:protect
132:history
82:New to
1014:WP:HEY
963:(1979)
891:Shahid
872:Shahid
832:Shahid
787:Delete
770:Shahid
666:below.
349:Delete
304:Delete
183:Google
141:delete
1073:Ab207
226:JSTOR
187:books
171:Stats
158:views
150:watch
146:links
16:<
1077:talk
1069:Keep
1060:talk
1052:Keep
1043:talk
1035:Keep
1026:talk
1012:per
1010:Keep
999:talk
972:talk
934:Keep
854:talk
812:talk
804:Keep
795:talk
763:Keep
754:talk
727:talk
705:talk
640:talk
623:talk
597:talk
571:talk
537:talk
511:talk
481:talk
455:talk
440:talk
426:talk
407:talk
388:talk
374:talk
357:talk
336:talk
328:Keep
316:talk
291:talk
271:talk
251:talk
219:FENS
193:news
154:logs
128:talk
124:edit
60:Work
50:keep
896:•
877:•
837:•
775:•
610:PS:
558:or
420:to
233:TWL
162:– (
1079:)
1062:)
1045:)
1028:)
1016:.
1001:)
974:)
966:--
958:,
856:)
814:)
797:)
756:)
729:)
721:--
707:)
642:)
625:)
599:)
573:)
539:)
513:)
483:)
457:)
442:)
409:)
390:)
376:)
359:)
338:)
318:)
293:)
285:.
273:)
265:.
253:)
213:)
156:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
52:.
1075:(
1058:(
1041:(
1024:(
997:(
970:(
852:(
810:(
793:(
752:(
725:(
718::
714:@
703:(
682:)
678:(
638:(
621:(
595:(
584::
580:@
569:(
550::
546:@
535:(
509:(
494::
490:@
479:(
453:(
438:(
429:·
424:(
405:(
386:(
372:(
355:(
334:(
314:(
302:*
289:(
269:(
249:(
237:)
229:·
223:·
215:·
208:·
202:·
196:·
190:·
185:(
177:(
174:)
167:·
160:)
122:(
107:)
103:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.