Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhara (film)


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Dhara (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

1. Breaks WP notability guidelines. 2. Not at all verifiable. 3. Google Search does not bring anything useful for expansion. 4. Just because this film got a page on IMDb is not the reason that it should've a page on WP. Harsh Rathod Poke me!  13:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  15:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:57, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per nom. This "Dhara" ad is more notable. w umbolo   ^^^  13:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —AE  ( talk  •  contributions ) 02:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: There seems to be an overwhelming amount of non-noteworthy, mediocre, stub articles I'm running into that are being nominated for deletion. Now I'm not sure if this is a recent trend or if these types of articles have always plagued the website but this one falls into the category I'm describing. Besides the fact that a simple google search provides little to no information (from what I could tell) about the film, The majority of the article is it's plot section. This is an issue for 2 reasons. 1: One doesn't look for an encyclopedic entry of a film to find even more than say 10% of the article about the films plot, in fact, that is what google and websites that review and give information about films are for, not Wikipedia (of course not to say that there shouldn't be a section detailing the plot). 2: If you take a look at more well written articles about perhaps a more popular film, lets say Captain America: Civil War, the plot section is moderately sized and isn't the focus, the article details other things such as cast, a section about production with many subsections, and so on. Finally, as more of a side note I'd like to say that this article's trivia section with a single sentence seems to be unnecessary and more of an attempt to make the article longer rather than provide useful information.Grapefruit17 (talk) 14:20, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete-The best that I managed to confirm after a 20 minute search, back in morning is that it ain't a hoax. &#x222F; WBG converse 14:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Me thinks it's a B-grade drama and I was foolish to invest much efforts...... &#x222F; WBG converse 14:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Original creator of the article speaking. By all means go ahead and delete it. I know writing articles about movies is not my forte; in fact, I rarely write about anything that's not my specialism at all (I've decided to leave this project anyway, but that's a different story). I have seen the film, so I can tell you for sure that it exists. Since this Wikipedia has an article about practically any movie, I was kind of surprised back then that there wasn't one in this case, so I simply decided to write a stub—admittedly based on one single primary source, namely, the film itself. AFAIK there's no rule that says that a stub must a sourced. It is verifiable, since the film can be easily purchased. I have no opinion regarding notability, except that notability is, and has never been, a hard criterion. The fact that notability is at least weak is probably shown by the fact that practically nobody has expanded the article since it was created nine years ago, except for the trivia section (which I agree is unnecessary given the length of the article). &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  15:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , notability was, is and will be a hard criterion.See WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V.Best, &#x222F; WBG converse 15:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A guideline is not the same thing as a hard rule. But that's an old discussion we're not going to have here. Besides, I haven't claimed any notability, nor am I objecting to deleting the article. For the record, I found the movie (I still possess it) rather mediocre, to put it nicely. Cheers, &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  16:04, 11 September 2018 (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.