Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kahin Aar Kahin Paar

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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kahin Aar Kahin Paar

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2008. A WP:BEFORE search turned up an entry without a plot summary in BFI, a blog, and the press pack. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pasting a comment that I posted on a similar AfD earlier this afternoon. This page follows many other pages that I have been observing in the last few weeks (and perhaps before that as well), of Indian films from the 1950-1980s, that have been showing up for deletion. By the current rules of WP:NFILM, they all fall short of the requirements, primarily because of the lack of English language online sources of reviews for these films, resulting in an undue number of films from the 1990s. This should be a topic of discussion for one of the India Projects, to think through at an aggregate rather than discussing each of the films on a one on one basis in an AfD. I agree with the high level sentiment that Wikipedia is not IMDB. However, in the same vein, Wikipedia is not just a replication avenue other recent online sources (read as recent newspapers). Ktin (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A search on कहीं आर कहीं पार shows several sources that discuss the film. This is just a passing mention and unfortunately this, this and this snippets are truncated, but if a 1971 Hindi film had a star with the stature of Joy Mukherjee and we can still find digitized versions of Hindi books that discuss it, notability is clear. The film magazines of the time would of course have reviewed it in depth, but they are unlikely to be online in search-accessible format. As Ktin points out, this probably should be discussed as a general issue at one of the India projects. We should not delete articles on films that are probably notable given their cast, director, budget etc. just because it is hard to find online sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid argument to keep an article. Sources MUST be found and attributed. Also, just because they had notable cast, director, etc. does not mean the film is notable, as WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur (nom). If there are RS sources, add them. So long as they are WP:Verifiable, their language is irrelevant. If sources are found and added, and the article thereby saved - great, good result. But - enwiki requires articles to be sourced, and that is non-negotiable. This article currently fails that test. Narky Blert (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and JPL Spiderone 11:17, 8 September 2020 (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.