Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bazar Bheema


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Bazar Bheema

 * – ( View AfD View log )

In its current state, this Indian film related article totally fails WP:NFILM. A single source is their which is not a reliable one.  Jim Carter (from public cyber)  13:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:V and WP:N. I don't know what made to create several similar article while giving support of unreliable reference wordpress. See his some recent contributions Janumadatha, Hongkongnalli Agent Amar, Indina Bharatha, Asambhava, Athiratha Maharatha, and so on.... There is no doubt he have made several good contributions on WP. ''' C ute st Penguin  (Talk) 11:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:INDAFD: Bazar Bheema Perala Y V Rao M Balaiah
 * WP:INDAFD: Bazar Bheema Perala Y V Rao M Balaiah


 * As it appears this brand new article can be sourced away from wordpress, why not simply tag it for issues and let them be addressed over time and through regular editing?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - the links that you have given above does not have any significant coverage or have 0 coverage in the article. ''' C ute st Penguin  (Talk) 06:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My comment was not about SIGCOV, but for sourcability away from wordpress. Its problematic to not allow a creator time to improve an article. Being at the minimum at least sourcable, WP:ATD allows options that might allow that improvement, even were sources to not be in English. And if unimproved, deletion is always a option, it just should not always be someone's first and only choice for weak articles, if issues might be addressed.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The above links still lacks significant coverage or have 0 coverage. ''' C ute st Penguin (Talk) 17:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. No significant coverage found searching on either the English or Kannada title. The Kannada Wikipedia article is considerably worse than this one, unlikely as that may seem. --Michig (talk) 06:57, 23 August 2014 (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.