Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daku Kali Bhawani


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Daku Kali Bhawani

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM, no reviews found in a BEFORE. All currents sources are database sites.

PROD removed with "AfD it" with no improvements/reviews added. Donald D23  talk to me  13:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India.  Donald D23   talk to me  13:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - indeed, a B-grade film, but not a non-notable one IMO. Sources added, including from one from India Today. The film was released in 2000, and sadly there isn't much information available from those days anyway. Box-office numbers also exist, from Box Office India. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  12:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sourcing now is much better than it was and includes an article from two years after the film release. DareshMohan (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to delete. Reason: did ctrl-f "Daku" and found three about Daku Maharani, one about Daku Dilruba and one about this film. At first, I thought all were about this film. DareshMohan (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Strong Delete. The current three trivial refs does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM at all. BFI inclusion is a database, ref 2 mentions the film in a one short paragraph, almost all being quotes (no critical commentary), whereas ref 3 is a database entry on its box office, and even if that's high, fame isn't synonymous with notability. Currently, I strongly oppose keep. Responding to previous keep comments- The sourcing now is much better than it was and includes an article from two years after the film release- we have three refs, two are databases, and the "article" is a trivial mention. Notability per WP:GNG at least requires two or more significant, independent, reliable refs, this is obviously not met. Per Shshshsh's comment, [sources] added, including from one from India Today. The film was released in 2000, and sadly there isn't much information available from those days anyway, if that's indeed true, it supports that the film is not notable. WP:BEFORE search found a couple of books with one hit, not much else. Though, like previous AfDs, I'd wish that could find more refs and rescue the article, though, until then the keep comments assert that routine databases and trivial mentions meet any notability criteria, though, we might need to respectfully disagree, like previous AfDs, on whether this meets notability criteria. Many thanks again to the nom and Shshshsh in the attempts to rescue the article (even if I obviously disagree), and please ping me if more refs are found! VickKiang 23:03, 18 September 2022 (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.