- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Bhagwan Shri Krishna ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A Bollywood film, sourced only to IMDb (non- WP:RS), without even a plot. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. While a
search can be location biased Wikipedia is not a
crystal ball and if there are sources "out there" then
proof needs to be offered. IMDb is not a reliable source (See:
WP:ELP,
WP:RSPS, and
WP:RS/IMDB), and creating articles then one day (maybe) in the future finding sources is backward to the intent of Wikipedia
WP:policies and guidelines. I am not opposed to recreation if sources are presented.
WP:NEXIST states:
Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.
- 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.
- 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Bhagwan Shri Krishna ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A Bollywood film, sourced only to IMDb (non- WP:RS), without even a plot. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Narky Blert ( talk) 21:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. While a
search can be location biased Wikipedia is not a
crystal ball and if there are sources "out there" then
proof needs to be offered. IMDb is not a reliable source (See:
WP:ELP,
WP:RSPS, and
WP:RS/IMDB), and creating articles then one day (maybe) in the future finding sources is backward to the intent of Wikipedia
WP:policies and guidelines. I am not opposed to recreation if sources are presented.
WP:NEXIST states:
Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.
- 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.