Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bollywood Hungama


 * 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   speedy keep. Lame (WP:SK 2). Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Bollywood Hungama

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

--CrazyAboutBollywood 12:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 *  Delete - web content that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject CrazyAboutBollywood 10:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 29.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  10:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 *  Delete - This page is completely under the speedy deletion criteria. following reasons are: G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion, A7 No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content), Also check the G12 Unambiguous copyright infringement and the give the reference of duplicate content detector whether it is comes under the G12 criteria or not?
 * striking repetitive !vote by nominator.&mdash; Spaceman Spiff  22:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What line is the article looks like an advertisement to you dear? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - totally notable and the article justifies its existence, might need expansion though. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  20:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - enough references available.Fanofbollywood (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fans are so much better than crazy people! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk)  20:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance.--CrazyAboutBollywood 22:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)--CrazyAboutBollywood 22:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAboutBollywood (talk • contribs)
 *  Strong Delete - Please Read criteria G11 and and A7, the article must be deleted.
 * striking repetitive !vote by nominator.&mdash; Spaceman Spiff  22:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Discussing speedy deletion criteria is not relevant in an AfD discussion, especially since the article has been nominated for speedy deletion but the reviewing administrator declined the speedy. --bonadea contributions talk 08:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete' - This article has not sufficient sources. Alexa ranking is self service website any one can create account with it. This is not reliable source and another 2 given sources is not sufficient, its looking like press releases. In both the references, company person are saying the statement and its look like press releases.--Aman Rajveer 05:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanrajveer (talk • contribs)
 * Keep: Article depicts a site which is reliable for use as per our guidelines, but reliability does not automatically bestow notability. The site has been latched on to passing mentions in tons of reputed websites which have also used their reports directly or indirectly, but notability demands that significant coverage and some material about the site in third-party sources is necessary. After a lengthy search, I could find only two references (other than the ones in the article) (1 and 2). I doubt if these are competent enough to contain the article and on par with WP:WEB. From what I can comprehend, this is a case of WP:BARE where the article just seems on border between notability and non-notability, making its contingency inconceivable beyond WP:TWOPRONGS. But again, what is competent and what is not is again subjective. If more sources could be found, the article's stance would escalate, but until then, it remains as a mere paradigm of bare notability. Secret of success  ( talk )  07:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep It's not particularly difficult to find coverage in secondary sources for IndiaFM, including an article in a peer-reviewed acadmic journal using IndiaFM as a case study. --bonadea contributions talk 08:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: The nominator, CrazyAboutBollywood, has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Amanrajveer. All of the "delete" comments above are from one or other of those two accounts. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep: Very much notable in, for and among Bollywoodist. This tells you how notable the site is. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The site is notable but the link you provided for the searches contains most of the results from Indiafm itself. :P Secret of success  ( talk )  11:49, 30 April 2012 (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.