Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do Mastane

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. No policy or source links to show here, but still, consensus after two relistings is clearly to keep. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 19:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do Mastane

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

No notability and poorly referenced (no reliable sources). Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: A little diligence finds this 1958 film, a representative sample of Indian cinematic history, is sourcable. Yes, pre-1990s Indian films are difficult to source, but not absolutely impossible. Why was it brought to AFD mere minutes after being contributed, when tagging it for editorial attention might have been the better choice? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 00:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quiet notable. It seems nominator is nominating all articles for deletion created by this user without any research. I fully agree with comments of MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs). Jethwarp (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep- Nominator must consider that any delete nomination takes a lot of man hours to research, comment and vote. Speedy keep.Ireneshih (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above - Films before 1990s are alot harder to source so leeway is usually given on these. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2014 (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.