Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ab Meri Baari


 * 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.  Sandstein  15:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ab Meri Baari

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reliable sources online discuss a pro-retirement campaign, not an action movie. I heard there was a Wikipedia essay that helps users execute WP:BEFORE for India related articles (since basic WP:BEFORE tends to miss reliable Indian sources) but I can't find it. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Update Thanks,. Sources all say in passing that the movie was cancelled in development. More evidence on which to delete this article. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think WP:INDAFD is the essay you're looking for. The search tools listed there can be helpful. /wiae   /tlk  23:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:INDAFD: "Ab Meri Baari"


 * Keep as a suitable stub. Amazingly, we have enough sourcing available for this pre-internet film to show it has made its mark.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But if you look at the sources, the only reason it was mentioned was because there were some notable actors and filmmakers that worked together on this before it was abandoned, and some of them later worked with each other to make an unrelated production. Notability is not inherited. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * And totally ignoring WP:INHERIT, if a project it were not of note, it would not even have been worthy of any mention at all. WP:NFF (paragraph 3) tells us that with souracblity a film produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed could have an article, if production efforts were notable per the guidelines. Their sad luck to try to produce a film before India got the internet. LOL   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: The sources only mention the movie in passing, there is no in-depth coverage. Not notable, and unless in-depth sources can be found there simply would not be anything much to say about the move. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. What sources? The Article has no Reference List. For the record, I agree. It should be deleted. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sources in the article, and those produced above are trivial mentions at best. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC).


 * 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.