Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CID Agent 302

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CID Agent 302 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Found in film directories/indices like Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema and World Filmography (1968) but no critical analysis. Critical analysis is required to meet WP:NFILM, not just history of existing. Unless offline sources can be demonstrated as suggested by de-PRODding editor, this should be deleted. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-A film featuring well-known actors and having songs produced by a maestro ought to have got sufficient coverage (reviews etc.) in local sources.And, sources/reviews about Indian film(s) from 1970s (a time from when most newspaper archives aren't online) shall-not be expected to be online/easily available.And surely, this ain't a hoax.~ Winged Blades^Godric 03:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that it doesn't appear at Tun Tun#Partial filmography, which does square with my contention that it's basically non notable. Doesn't it? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From when another WP article is an indicator of notability?!~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I trawled the offline sources, at quite a depth but could get only two paragraph-long review(s).And, that's not sufficient for me to stick to keep.:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:34, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I had voted to delete, but have now changed to Keep - indeed, it is listed in some film reference works.Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: you said "Doesn't seem notable" but you voted to keep. Could you clarify? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri: Bri - That was an error, I've changed the vote now, based on other people's comments - does in fact seem notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:NFILM. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep noted in other encyclopedia's. Appropriate to keep it in this pageless one. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment at least two !voters have said it is listed in reference works and other encyclopedias but without saying which ones. As I stated at the top NFILM requires more than "listings in comprehensive film guides". So far no solid evidence has been presented that this exists. ☆ Bri (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try using Google Books? It is covered in Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema as well as in World Cinema (1968) for example. Plenty of coverage. FloridaArmy (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See top of page, I linked both of those film directories when I did WP:BEFORE. I repeat, directories do not fulfill NFILM. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:14, 3 March 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.