Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behindwoods


 * 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. joe deckertalk 22:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Behindwoods

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:WEBCRIT. Not a popular website, fails WP:NOT as well. Coderzombie (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  19:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  19:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep No idea why this article is being picked on but it meets GNG and is adequately sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 01:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the nomination. It just seems like one of many fan sites. Can't find any reliable sources. BollywoodFanForever (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Isn't the media coverage of the site's award ceremonies ( and ) enough to prove the site's notability? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Kailash29792, the 2nd of those links does not function.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Does not constitute notability on its own as per Notability (awards) Coderzombie (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Above comment not valid. Notability (awards) is an obsolete page, but was in all events not applicable since it deals with award recipients, not, as here, award-granting institutions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed the second link. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Appears to be a newish film website that has gotten some coverage of its annual film awards. Problem is that the facts on the page are self-sourced,  the few secondary sources list the awards, but say little about Behindwoods itself, and I do not see enough  mentions in secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.   Flag me if you find better sourcesE.M.Gregory (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * How about draftify? Kailash29792 (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of content as much as it's of notability to me. Coderzombie (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Did a quick online search and could not find strong sources to determine notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star Islington (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, but I do not consider these 2 sources, as reliable (otherwise our "prestigious teahouse" would be notable). Some of the references available in the article do mention the subject, but only in passing. I am yet to find a reliable secondary source which has significant coverage of the topic. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , I don't have an opinion in this article but I just want to comment on the sourcing. It's the city pages of Times of India, Indian Express, Hindustan Times, New Indian Express etc that have all sorts of user submitted content under the guise of journalistic output. The entertainment section is a different animal altogether. I'm not saying it's good, just that it's not the same or comparable as they have different goals and standards (at the least, these pages aren't pure user submissions). &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. You are right about this. I browsed the entertainment section of the "New Indian Express" and there does seem to be some sort of editorial control (as compared to the Teahouse article). And although some of the articles read a bit like press releases and seem to be sourced from IANS, the standards are better than the city pages content - which may be user submitted. Thank you for letting me know. I'll be careful about this as I had previously (incorrectly) assumed this was a non-RS publication as a whole. This is definitely not the case here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as both my examinations here and my searches found nothing better, sources and information....but still nothing else particularly convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  17:47, 16 June 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.