Talk:7½ Phere

message: :Image:Sadesatphere.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sadesatphere.jpg

message: I have to question the relevance and notability of a non-English-language movie not shown outside of India on the English Wikipedia. In fact, no sources have been cited for why it is notable other than existing as a movie production, and even if there were such sources, they would need to be English, or at least another language relevant to and spoken by the Western/English-speaking world demonstrating notability to people who live outside of India: an link to the IMDB entry does not suffice. For that matter, the movie didn't even review well, leading one to question even further why this film is considered notable enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia. 
A quick search reveals precisely zero coverage by reliable (much less themselves notable) 3rd-party sources or coverage of any note/value in the English language aside from a short synopsis in the Hindustan times which is of no encyclopedic value, and does not confer, imply or describe any notability.
The Wikipedia is not the IMDB, and the IMDB exists for a purpose. 
besiegedtalk 22:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting WP:NOTFILM:
A topic related to film may not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline, but significant coverage is not always possible to find on the Internet, especially for older films. The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:
*    The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.
*    The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
**        Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.
**        The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[2]
**        The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release.
**        The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.
*    The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[3]
*    The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[4]
*    The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.
These criteria are presented as rules of thumb for easily identifying films that Wikipedia should probably have articles about. In almost all cases, a thorough search for independent, third-party reliable sources will be successful for a film meeting one or more of these criteria. However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the film.
Some films that do not pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits. The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant. Some inclusionary criteria to consider are:
*    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, with such verifiable claims as "The only cel-animated feature film ever made in Thailand" (See The Adventure of Sudsakorn)[5]
*    The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career.
*    An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there.
*    The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." 'Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced', and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited.[6]
besiegedtalk 01:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominating for deletion as non-relevant/non-notable