Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ek Abla

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. – Joe (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Abla (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)

Searches for "Ek Abla" on JSTOR turn up nothing and only one seemingly unrelated result for the same query in WorldCat. It seems that the only source, offline or online that isn't a Wikipedia mirror is IMDb, and unfortunately that isn't sufficient to satisfy WP:NFILM. Pinging User:Winged Blades of Godric as de-prodder. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as Google books shows numerouus reliable sources and there is probably more offline as an Indian silent film is of academic interest, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-I ran a detailed search (in probable databases and offline book(s), whence this had a good chance of being located) but nothing except trivial name-mention(s) as a produced film and theaters, where it had ran.No commentary/review or minimal discussion of any aspect of the film .∯WBG^converse 12:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still I will ask for a relist so that I can try to access the local dailies of the release-period.(which is going to be a herculean/impossible task).Anyways, AFAIK, chances of covering a film in vernacular(s) of those days were pretty remote, either.∯WBG^converse 12:16, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Neither the content of the article, its reference, or anything else that has been found and presented gives any indication of notability. The only reasons given for keeping are "Google books shows numerouus [sic] reliable sources" and "there is probably more offline". If Google books really does show numerous sources which give the sort of substantial coverage needed then it would be very easy to tell us what those sources are, but we haven't been told. We don't make decisions on the basis of assurances from some editor that sources exist without being told what the sources are so that we can assess them: see Wikipedia:Verifiability . "There is probably more offline" is even worse, as we certainly don't decide notability on the basis of someone's guess as to what sources may exist: see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#There must be sources. The king of the sun (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • see WP:ADHOM and you are supposed to search for sources yourself Atlantic306 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:V require that an article's contents must be verifiable to readers through sources that are actually cited in the article, not just by sources that exist somewhere. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 14:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Quis separabit? 19:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:not. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG for sure. Dial911 (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:24, 6 July 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.