Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antorborti

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 Draftify‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antorborti

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This unreleased film (apparently filmed in 2022) fails WP:NFILM, which specifies that Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. This movie's coverage is limited to tabloid-style mentions in unbylined articles that trigger the concerns of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Thus, the articles that reference to the film's production are not reliable sources. Until such time as the the production is confirmed by reliable sources or the film is released and given full-length reviews by multiple reliable sources, there is no pass of WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. (Note that the promotional bio of the filmmaker by the same page creator is also up for deletion for similar reasons.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Bangladesh. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete: non notable film and sources are unhelpful.~~ Anktjha (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify.: And wait for release. Not sure all the coverage is really "not reliable", btw. For example, please note that established tabloids can be used per WP:TABLOID. What makes you say, for example, that, Bangladesh Pratidin cannot be used for verification of uncontroversial facts? even not bylined articles. Also, please note that, even if certain users insist that that section of an informational page can apply to all the subctontinent, using WP:NEWSORGINDIA for other countries than India is something that may be frowned upon by certain users. The lead actor having died last year and this apparently wrapped film being one of his last, I suppose a Redirect and [minimal/simple mention] merge to Ahmed Rubel could also be considered. (with the following source, https://www.alokitobangladesh.com/print-edition/entertainment/171837/আসছে-আহমেদ-রুবেল-অভিনীত-সিনেমা-অন্তর্বর্তী or https://follow-upnews.com/জীবনযাপন/এসএম-কাইয়ুম-এর-পরিচালনা/ -Mushy Yank. 10:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC) [For the record, full quote of applicable guideline, above in green is: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." (emphasis mine).-Mushy Yank. 10:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)][reply]
MY, I fundamentally disagree that the Akolito Bangladesh story (authored by "Entertainment Reporter") and the Follow-UpNews story (with no byline at all) constitute the kind of WP:SIGCOV necessary to make the production itself notable. They cannot be considered reliable. WP:NEWSORGINDIA applies to all South Asian entertainment coverage, in which unbylined coverage has a reasonably high likelihood of being paid/sponsored placement and thus cannot be relied upon per the WP:RSP guideline of Exercise caution in using such sources for factual claims or to establish notability. Look at the tone and language of the article, its placement in the publication, use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter or reviewer, overlap in language with articles found in other publications and on other websites, and others. And for a film to remain unreleased nearly three years after shooting suggests this film may never see the light of day, making a "draftify" outcome less useful. (And given the potential COI and promotional nature of the page creator's edits, I suspect this would result in a quick return to mainspace and we'd be right back here again.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971"the Akolito Bangladesh story (authored by "Entertainment Reporter") and the Follow-UpNews story (with no byline at all) constitute the kind of WP:SIGCOVnecessary to make the production itself notable.": but that's not at all what I said! I said to use them to verify and source the role in case it is redirected and merged.

As for NEWSORGINDIA, again, I understood why you wish to use it, but doing so has been said to hurt the feelings of certain non-Indian South Asian users (and probably of some Indian users too, or even third-party users). To extend it to all South Asian entertainment might also be seen as expressing a Wikipedia:Systemic bias.

Thank you anyway. -Mushy Yank. 20:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discourse here is varied, and presently there are notions to delete the article (from the nominator), and notions to Draftify it or Redirect it to Ahmed Rubel, the film's lead actor. This discussion would certainly benefit from more input from other users. Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't agree with the framing of the rationale for deletion. Fourteen newspapers are cited saying that principal photography not only began, but was completed. They include some of the most reputable and widely circulated media outlets in Bangladesh: Bangladesh Pratidin, Kaler Kantho, Alokito Bangladesh, Bonik Barta, Samakal, Jaijaidin, The Daily Star, Daily Sun, RTV, Janakantha, and Jugantor. WP:NEWSORGINDIA is explicitly about Indian news organizations, not Bangladeshi ones or other South Asian entertainment coverage. One could debate whether it ought to be about all of South Asia, or indeed the entire world, but this is not the place for that discussion. I find that there are ample reliable sources to support that shooting is complete.

That being said, I don't believe that sources that say who the cast and crew are, that filming is complete, and that editing is underway are enough to make the production itself notable. The WP:NFF advice that an unreleased film generally should not have its own article applies. So I agree with Dclemens1971 and Mushy Yank that this does not belong in article space. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If draftify is the preference for this (and the page about its director), then I won't object, although as noted above I suspect draftification will have this article back at AfD sooner than later. Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per ATD-I. If the film is released and reviewed, someone will undoubtedly write an article about it, and a draft could serve as a useful starting point. There is a risk that creator Md.Monto or someone like them will ignore WP:DRAFT's instruction that they "should ... respond to the reason for moving to draft status, and use the AfC submission process to have the page moved back to mainspace." If that happens, then we will be back here, and next time I would recommend deletion. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thank you @Worldbruce, What about a redirect (even if temporary, should the film be released later)? That would "solve" the "problem", don't you think? -Mushy Yank. 12:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: Nothing prevents anyone from creating a redirect after draftification. I don't understand how having one would solve the problem of promotional editing by one or more undeclared paid editors in the future. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it does not. Hence my double scare quotes. But at least we don't have to worry about the Draft turned into a redirect (:D). And a basic mention on the page of the actor does not seem undue and might satisfy everyone as a compromise. -Mushy Yank. 22:15, 19 February 2025 (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.