Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wahan Ke Log

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. czar 03:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wahan Ke Log

[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)

My WP:PROD was correctly declined; I had missed the fact that this article had been PRODded before, so here we are. My PROD rationale: Sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a copy of the one-line plot-summary in IMDb, and that was all. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing vote per WP:HEY. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Nom. Priyanjali singh (talk) 10:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking at the GHITS, I can see a few references to it, but nothing from noted RS. There is a listing on IMDB, but there's no reviews of it, doesn't seem to be notable. Scant RS in the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:41, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 14:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - did my best to expand it. There's quite a decent coverage of the film in books and scholarly press. It turns out to be one of the first sci-fi films made in India. I invite those who voted to delete it to have a look at it. I think it could even be taken to DYK. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been expanded with the use of reliable academic and book sources so that WP:GNG is passed and there is no longer any reason for deletion. Also note that the delete votes were cast before the article was improved, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Indeed, the article was significantly expanded on 14 September 2020‎, which included the addition of fourteen references. Relisting to allow for consideration of those sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shahid's recent WP:HEY. The reception section alone now indicates a clear pass of WP:NFILM. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY for Shahid's improvements, well done. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article was improved at AfD. Before AfD, During AfD. Passes our notability guideline Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film received significant coverage. --Gazal world (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while I understand the nom's rationale, it clearly now passes WP:NFILM.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (nom). That's more like it! Great WP:RESCUE work by Shshshsh. Narky Blert (talk) 02:42, 19 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.