Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anubhav (1986 film)

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Harsh Rathod 04:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anubhav (1986 film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article contains no references. It is a stub. The poster image used is also not real one. Harsh Rathod 04:40, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: please read WP:BEFORE. Being unsourced and/or a stub is not a reason for deletion. WikiP as 100s of 1000s of articles in the same condition. Next, can you provide any evidence that the poster used is not the real one. Most films have more than one poster. MarnetteD|Talk 05:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains personal viewpoints and notability issues. See the music section in it. Neither music nor the film is notable. Harsh Rathod 05:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to give some examples of the "personal viewpoints" as well as explaining what is wrong with the list of music used in the film. MarnetteD|Talk 06:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - film is very famous and well known in india for its suggestive content..ALSO, not having a popular music as deletion criteria is strange..this film was never meant to be musical...its a mild sex comedy..and what make nominator feel that poster is not real?"personal viewpoint"?? :-)) the film Also has IMDB page --http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395453/... many wikipedia film articles are based only on IMDB...

I ask for proof on these statements: 1. From Soundtrack section: "Music was not very notable." 2. From track listing: "Alka Yagnik uncredited" Harsh Rathod 07:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment-- @Harsh Rathod, WE already have your vote as nominator... please delete your additional vote of "strong delete" it doesn't serve any purpose to vote again and again...ALSO, not having a popular music as deletion criteria is strange..this film was never meant to be musical...its a mild sex comedy..and what make nominator feel that poster is not real?"personal viewpoint"?? :-)) the film Also has IMDB page --http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0395453/... many wikipedia film articles are based only on IMDB... thanks, Adamstraw99 (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. This article has a history of poor editing and the English here nowhere resembles like encyclopaedic prose. Also, having a dedicated page on IMDb, BBFC, etc. does not mean that the film is notable and should be on Wikipedia. Till now, the only reason I got is that it has IMDb page. I am asking for reference proof after every statement on this page. Or this page will spread misconceptions to a huge mass of people. IMDb is not a sole place for reference.Harsh Rathod 08:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

--- "not done", you should have deleted your double vote before writing "done" here ..again, "poor editing" and "poor english" are not criteria for deletion.. we must contribute to improve English and editing in this article instead of trying to delete the entire article ... thanks Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Varifiability is the issue here. You are still not able to provide proof for above two statements. Justify the prose written in the article by citing references. Harsh Rathod 09:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-- Read and try to understand the first comment in this thread by MarnetteD... also, there are hundreds of indian films without popular music... Ek Ruka Hua Faisla is one such example which did not have even a single song...why don't you nominate it also on the same grounds??..thanks Adamstraw99 (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still stay put to my firm decision for deletion of this page since the text provided on the article can't be verified on the basis of IMDb page alone. And I didn't ask if the music did well or not. I just wanted verification proof for statements in the article. There is no source for proof reading. It is written that Alka Yagnik was uncredited on that track. How can I know what was the source for that? Is it written on any publication? How can I know? Harsh Rathod 13:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-- it does not matter (or nobody gives a damn) whether you stay put to your "firm decision" or not..... Sadly, this article does not meet the wikipedia community requirement for deletion.... I will leave it here for Admins to decide... thanks -- Adamstraw99 (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who asked you? Just leave. Instead of fighting with me here. You could have improved the article by now. But no, people got opinions on everything whethere it matters them or not. Harsh Rathod 19:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have found some references and will add them to the article, they are here, here and here. According to the first reference the film was re-released in 2013 so it must have been a popular film and attracted attention 17 years after its first showing. Will also change the poster as you consider it to be wrong. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources added means that the article meets WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. MarnetteD|Talk 16:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I withdraw my nomination. 😭 Harsh Rathod 04:39, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.