- 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 delete. MBisanz talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Strugglers: The Reality Behind
- Strugglers: The Reality Behind ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet the WP:NOTFILM criteria at all. No reliable sources, no significant coverage. A few YouTube clips and one (minimal) listing on "Filmipop". IMDb hasn't heard of it either. Yintan 20:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The article is cited with national news paper references. It is extremely unfortunate about this editor's agenda driven vandalism. Riisen ( talk) 05:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- @
Riisen:You've already been given a level4 warning for personal attacks. Stop it now.
Yintan 07:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am not attacking you, I have sent you national references, answer me about that, you are not answering me if i raise a valid point, you actually dont want to come to consensus about Kamalika Chanda article is notable.
Riisen (
talk) 07:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- @ Riisen: Accusing me of "racial abuse", "harassment" and "chinese intolerance" is an attack. And I've already tried to explain the difference between 'notability' and 'existence' to you. Don't play dumb. Besides, if you've got a problem with my editing or my attitude, feel free to take it to WP:ANI. This is not the place for it. Yintan 09:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am not attacking you, I have sent you national references, answer me about that, you are not answering me if i raise a valid point, you actually dont want to come to consensus about Kamalika Chanda article is notable.
Riisen (
talk) 07:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 03:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
*Strong deleteIs absolutely non-notable. Is missing even from IMDB. Extreme lack of independent coverage and sources. Aru@baska ❯❯❯ Vanguard 17:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- 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 delete. MBisanz talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Strugglers: The Reality Behind
- Strugglers: The Reality Behind ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet the WP:NOTFILM criteria at all. No reliable sources, no significant coverage. A few YouTube clips and one (minimal) listing on "Filmipop". IMDb hasn't heard of it either. Yintan 20:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The article is cited with national news paper references. It is extremely unfortunate about this editor's agenda driven vandalism. Riisen ( talk) 05:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- @
Riisen:You've already been given a level4 warning for personal attacks. Stop it now.
Yintan 07:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am not attacking you, I have sent you national references, answer me about that, you are not answering me if i raise a valid point, you actually dont want to come to consensus about Kamalika Chanda article is notable.
Riisen (
talk) 07:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- @ Riisen: Accusing me of "racial abuse", "harassment" and "chinese intolerance" is an attack. And I've already tried to explain the difference between 'notability' and 'existence' to you. Don't play dumb. Besides, if you've got a problem with my editing or my attitude, feel free to take it to WP:ANI. This is not the place for it. Yintan 09:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am not attacking you, I have sent you national references, answer me about that, you are not answering me if i raise a valid point, you actually dont want to come to consensus about Kamalika Chanda article is notable.
Riisen (
talk) 07:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ( speak to me) 03:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
*Strong deleteIs absolutely non-notable. Is missing even from IMDB. Extreme lack of independent coverage and sources. Aru@baska ❯❯❯ Vanguard 17:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- 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.