Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balak Ambedkar


 * 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. The only "keep" opinion is somewhere on the spectrum between nonsensical and disruptive.  Sandstein  18:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Balak Ambedkar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not fulfilling WP:GNG and far away from WP:NFO. has references to gossip/unreliable/self-published sites.  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 06:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 06:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 06:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Too old a film to have coverage over online sources. Can the article-creator provide reference to offline reviews? &#x222F; WBG converse 11:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep  this file is about Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Life and article is also important. more source, references should add and keep this article.प्रसाद साळवे (talk)
 * , Any valid sources? And remember nothing is inherently notable, please have a look at WP:NRV thanks  QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 15:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - QueerEcofeminist user is a casteist Person, he just targeting Dr. Babasheb Ambedkar Related Articals like Bole India Jai Bhim, Yugpurush Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Balak Ambedkar. just look his history of editing he never help to article. like references or growing. but just ignore and keep article. QueerEcofeminist is also targeting specific user also. प्रसाद साळवे (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs a bit more input
 * delete after a thorough search on this article, and two others, I couldnt find anything regarding this film. This film is about childhood of a notable person. But the film itself is not notable. I tried to find reviews for the film, but I couldnt find it; nor the coverage. Year 1991 is not that old. Also, it is to be noted that notability is not temporary. If the subject is notable, it should receive sustained coverage. In this case, the film has not received any coverage in any type of media, or at least I couldnt find any. The film fails generalised notability guidelines for films, as well as there are no other evidences of notability. — usernamekiran (talk)  18:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - * Neither article creator or users who wants to keep this article were able to provide any reliable+valid sources to their claims. This lack of any signs of notability was already expressed by the nominator and other editors. I guess we can close this as delete. thanks   QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 04:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2019 (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.