Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films set in Benaras: Difference between revisions

By /

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content deleted Content added


 
Line 45: Line 45:

{{outdent}}

{{outdent}}

REFBOMBING? Er,….no. {{tq|dumping a lot of citations found by quick googling}}….wow. “QUICK GOOGLING”??? DUMPING???? You’re welcome and thank you. Do you need to be offensive to make your point? <s>Again, you don’t seem to read the sources, at least not extensively or carefully. The place of publication is indicated ..</s>.[my bad, it’s the https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arun-Prakash-27 affiliation of the author only][[MIT World Peace University]]. To discard it because it is only an abstract could pass for disingenuous. The last source is not “self-published” at all from what I can see (https://www.thechakkar.com/aboutus because the author has a blog ELSEWHERE (you probably read his profile and thought it was the website publishing the article…..) does not mean the source is self-published!!!). You forget the first, like so many other things I “quickly dumped” and you “did read”…Bye-bye—<span style=”text-shadow:Blue 0.4em 0.5em 0.1em, Gray 0.2em 0.4em 0.9em, Pink 0.1em 0.2em 0.3em”>[[User talk:Eva UX|<span style=”font-family:Hoefler;color:red”>”’E-UX”'</span>]]</span> 21:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

REFBOMBING? Er,….no. {{tq|dumping a lot of citations found by quick googling}}….wow. “QUICK GOOGLING”??? DUMPING???? You’re welcome and thank you. Do you need to be offensive to make your point? <s>Again, you don’t seem to read the sources, at least not extensively or carefully. The place of publication is indicated ..</s>.[my bad, it’s the https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arun-Prakash-27 affiliation of the author only][[MIT World Peace University]]. To discard it because it is only an abstract could pass for disingenuous. The last source is not “self-published” at all from what I can see (https://www.thechakkar.com/aboutus because the author has a blog ELSEWHERE (you probably read his profile and thought it was the website publishing the article…..) does not mean the source is self-published!!!). You forget the first, like so many other things I “quickly dumped” and you “did read”…Bye-bye—<span style=”text-shadow:Blue 0.4em 0.5em 0.1em, Gray 0.2em 0.4em 0.9em, Pink 0.1em 0.2em 0.3em”>[[User talk:Eva UX|<span style=”font-family:Hoefler;color:red”>”’E-UX”'</span>]]</span> 21:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

*”’Comment”’: [[User:Eva UX|Eva UX]] (under all {{her|Eva UX}} difference signatures) is encouraged to avoid [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] the debate. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 09:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

*”’Comment”’: [[User:Eva UX|Eva UX]] (under all {{her|Eva UX}} signatures) is encouraged to avoid [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] the debate. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle|talk]]) 09:49, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:51, 30 September 2025

List of films set in Benaras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I find this list fan craft, articles about films can say where they were filmed, you can even add prose for culture and film to Varanasi, however this is an unnecessary fork of List of films shot in Varanasi. You don’t need to list everything. Govvy (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Clarityfiend: Except if you type in Benaras it redirects to Varanasi. That’s the start of the problem here. Govvy (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that a problem at all? And how is this relevant here? Everyone knows Benaras and Varanasi, Mumbai and Bombay, Leningrad and Saint Petersburg are the same thing, respectively. Does that make pages related to those cities non-notable? If you want to rename the page List of films set in Varanasi, feel free to discuss that on the talk page of the article. — E.UX 12:30, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That other such bad lists exist doesn’t mean that this bad list should be kept. The sources added to the lead by Eva UX aren’t even remotely sufficient to demonstrate notability. One simply has nothing; the other is some (possibly machine-generated) clickbait listicle; and the last just mentions the city very briefly in a footnote (and even then, only in the context of action movies). This also fails WP:LISTCRIT with vague inclusion criteria. What does it mean for a movie to be set in a specific city? Is one scene there enough? Two? How many? What if the dialog indicates it’s in one city, but the shots are of a clearly different city? (I’m reminded of Die Hard 2, in which the characters all talk about this taking place at Dulles, but is very clearly not shot at Dulles) How do we verify the list entries? Do we require sources (there are practically none in there), or do we rely on editors watching the films to go aha-that’s-city-X! 35.139.154.158 (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Keep. The arguments for deletion, while pointing out valid areas for improvement in the article’s current state, misinterpret a need for routine editorial task with a ground for deletion. The deletion appeals are based on three points—sourcing, criteria, and verifiability—all of which are standard challenges that are rectified by a collaborative process, not by removing the article.
    • On Notability and Sourcing: The assertion that the lead sources are insufficient misinterprets the requirement per WP:LISTN. The goal of these sources is to establish the notability of the topic as a whole that “films set in Benares/Varanasi” is a subject of discussion in reliable sources. While the initial sources can certainly be improved, their existence indicates the topic is valid. Deletion should be a last resort; the presence of some sourcing is a clear invitation to find better sources, which is a core editing task.
    • On Inclusion Criteria (WP:LISTCRIT): The questions “What does it mean for a movie to be set in a specific city? Is one scene there enough?”are not evidence of a failed list concept. Instead, they are precisely the kind of editorial details that are to be discussed and established by editors on the article’s talk page to form a consensus. The example of Die Hard 2 is an good case in point; this common discrepancy between a film’s narrative setting and its actual filming locations is a well-understood issue in filmography. We can handle this by defining their criteria (e.g., “significant portion of the plot” or “integral to the narrative”) and often include notes about filming locations, adding encyclopedic value. This is a editorial problem with a solution, not a flaw.
    • On Verifiability: The concern about relying on editors’ personal viewing (“aha-that’s-city-X!”) correctly identifies a violation of WP:OR, but the solution is adding citations, not to delete the page. The absence of inline sources for every entry is a cleanup issue. Verifying a film’s setting is one of the most straightforward sourcing tasks, achievable through film reviews, production notes, academic articles, and reputable databases like the AFI Catalog or BFI. The argument for deletion wrongly treats a current lack of citations as a permanent and insurmountable barrier.
    Finally, as it is correctly stated, a list of films set in a city is conceptually distinct from a list of films shot there, so this is not a content fork. And as Clarityfiend noted, the existence of an entire category of such lists shows that the Wikipedia community finds encyclopedic value in this type of article. The correct path forward is to address the valid cleanup points raised: build consensus on the talk page for clear inclusion criteria and collaboratively add sources for each entry.
    There are several list articles on films that are set in a city such as new york, LA, Paris, Patna etc. Let us first try to improve the any article instead of directly nominating it for deletion. NIA3000 (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

REFBOMBING? Er,….no. dumping a lot of citations found by quick googling….wow. “QUICK GOOGLING”??? DUMPING???? You’re welcome and thank you. Do you need to be offensive to make your point? Again, you don’t seem to read the sources, at least not extensively or carefully. The place of publication is indicated ...[my bad, it’s the https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arun-Prakash-27 affiliation of the author only]MIT World Peace University. To discard it because it is only an abstract could pass for disingenuous. The last source is not “self-published” at all from what I can see (https://www.thechakkar.com/aboutus because the author has a blog ELSEWHERE (you probably read his profile and thought it was the website publishing the article…..) does not mean the source is self-published!!!). You forget the first, like so many other things I “quickly dumped” and you “did read”…Bye-bye—E-UX 21:30, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version