Talk:No Means No (film)

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (your reason here) --Tere42 (talk) 07:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It was not promotional! There are many upcoming Bollywood movies that was on wikipedia and they are not deleted, If there is something wrong with the content please let me know so I can edit it according to wikipedia policies. Thank you

Tere42, do you have a conflict of interest with the movie's creators? Or were you paid by them for writing the article? JavaHurricane 07:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

JavaHurricane, No, I dont have have conflict of interest to the movie creators or paid for writing. It was my own will to write it . I search on youtube how to create an article on wikipedia and I love watching bollywood movies, I found out the No Means No movie don't have one so I gather info online and created it here as wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tere42 (talk • contribs)

No means No (Film) Discussion

Comment: @davidwr, @Drmies, @Donaldd23, @User:El cid, el campeador

1. Sir, I am shocked and disappointed to see that the Film/Movie of such a magnitude & high budget, was first put up for deletion and now shifted to draft, wherein there are innumerable independent articles in the Indian as well as International publications/media houses who are on the Wikipedia’s list of reliable sources, such as the article carried in “The Hindu” which is independent & in-depth article and is self explanatory & also covered in other international Media, whereas, the wikipedia page such as for the film “Madam Chief Minister” are still alive, inspite of having sources only from The Hindustan Times, Bollywood Hungama, The Times of India, which according my learned colleague @davidwr “The Times of India” are not under the list of reliable sources and otherwise all these three sources are not on the Wikipedia’s List of reliable sources, then how come the page of “Madam Chief Minister”’s page is still alive? Whereas these sources are there multiple times on the wikipedia page of “No means No”. This is my concern. Personally with all due respect, I have nothing against the article of the film “Madam Chief Minister”, but just referring it for comparison and knowledge, and one more question arises as to why the page of “No means No” is targeted?
2. Through the research and study of available & reliable sources in Wikipedia and others, the cast & crew such as
   1. Gulshan Grover, who is world renowned actor who has worked in more than 400 movies in Hollywood & Bollywood.
   2. Hariharan is a legendary Music Maestro and is conferred with the highest award and the title of “Padma Shri” by Government of India,
   3. Neetu Chandra is the winner of 2 national awards and is an actor working in both Hollywood & Bollywood,
   4. Shreya Ghoshal is a world renowned singer who has to her credit of 851 songs in Hindi Language itself and also has her statue at the London Museum of Madam Tussad’s and in America, one day is dedicated to her by the governor of California, United States,
   5. Shiamak Davar is a world famous choreographer who is known for his works for the film “Mission Impossible” & “Ghost Busters” and winner of various Filmfare Awards,
   6. Sharad Kapoor who is also a nominee for Filmfare Award for his acting work.
   7. The Director Mr. Vikash Verma, who is also a world renowned security expert has been awarded by the Government of Bihar, India for his contribution to the Bollywood film Industry and the film “No means No”; Source: The telegraph, Hindustan Times, Movie Talkies, Mid-day.
3. The Film which is on women empowerment story, to strengthen the relationship of the two countries, is backed & supported by the Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modi & Prof. Piotr Glinski - Dy. Prime Minister of Poland, Indian Ambassador to Poland, Polish Member of Parliament Ms. Ms. Malgorzata Pepek, the President of Bielsko-biala, and also the tweet by the government of Poland. I'snt the tweet from the government of Poland reliable and credible? Source “The Hindu”
4. Recently G7 Films. Poland which is the production house, have been awarded with “The Best Trailer Award” by the Mid-day & Jagran Group, which is one of the oldest news publishing house according to Wikipedia. The production house have been backed by more than 250 articles starting from the year 2017, published on various Multi-lingual Indian as well as International News Media which are on the Wikipedia pages. The research also confirms that none of these articles are the press releases.
5. I come across new article everyday from the publications which have their own wikipedia pages, which I had been putting up on the discussion page on regular basis. And as you can see that what I am writing now is already been updated on the discussion pages with the supporting links attached, which had been ignored for the reasons best know to my colleague authors and as a beginner I would like to know and understand on the different approaches to two pages of same category. Even all these information is been updated on the page of “No means No".
6. According to my learned colleague @davidwr, the page can remain live if more articles on the news media are published and mentioned on the page, which I could find a in-depth and detailed article on “The Hindu”, which also satisfies the condition of being on the Wikipedia list of reliable sources. Plus also Lokmat & Bollywood Hungama, Box Office India, & Cineblitz articles had come in and updated on the “No means No” page.
7. As my learned colleague @Drmies had analysed the discussion page and reached a conclusion that the article is to be sent to draft, whereas when I go through the discussion page, the visible consensus that can be seen is of keeping the page alive. One more point, when at first the page was put up for deletion and after the necessary discussion and changes, the page was allowed to keep alive. It’s difficult to understand that once the discussion was closed and then the article was kept alive, why is the page again brought up for deletion and then moved to draft, even though there were no changes made to the article.
8. I will update the below list of published articles on daily basis
   1. 5th February, 2021
      1. News Article on ANI News
      2. News Article on The Times of India
      3. News Article onThe Hindustan Times
      4. Tweet from the Government of Poland
9. Aren't the in-depth independent article published in the reliable sources not worthy of having this page live?

I was feeling proud by editing this page of such a great film, My whole effort has gone in vain and today, I feel emotionally hurt & disappointed having to face this situation and such humiliation, even after following all the guidelines and rules of Wikipedia. And fail to understand why there are two different measure sticks taken?

My humble request to you all of my colleagues, please reply so that I can get educated and guide me if I am wrong in of the inferences as derived in my above writeup. I am feeling discouraged to be actively participating in Wikipedia.

References

Archiedesai (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion/replies begin here

• Archiedesai, no attempt was made to humiliate anyone; such discussions on the notability of topics are a matter of course on Wikipedia. Please feel free to improve the draft, taking into account the comments made at the AfD, and resubmitting the draft when it is more likely it will be kept. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
• In light of all of the improvements that have happened since the AFD started, there is some chance that if this were sent to Deletion Review the AFD MIGHT be overturned. I say MIGHT, but I'd put the odds at less than 50/50. If you submitted it to AFC today, it MIGHT be approved right now, but the odds are also less than 50/50.

However, I have an idea that will likely result in this draft being accepted: Keep improving the article, then about a week or two before it's release date, submit the draft for review. This still won't be a "sure bet." A safer, more likely to be successful approach is to continue improving the article but wait until AFTER it has been in wide release for half a week so there are some early post-release reviews and early audience numbers, THEN submit it for review. Even that isn't a "sure thing" but it's the most likely path I can think of that will result in your hard work showing up where it will eventually belong - as an article in Wikipedia - by April 2021. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Movie poster

Current movie posters are almost never released under a "free" license. The image on the Wikimedia Commons, Commons:File:No Means No.jpg, has been nominated for deletion since 12 January 2021 (Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:No Means No.jpg).

Low-resolution movie posters are allowed on the English Wikipedia, but ONLY if there is an actual article, not a draft, that uses them. See WP:Non-free content criteria for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The movie poster has been removed, till the time the page is finalised and moved to the main area... Archiedesai (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)