Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freaky Chakra (Movie)


 * 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. Nominator has withdrawn request. Favonian (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Freaky Chakra (Movie)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The movie is not notable per WP:MOVIE and WP:GNG. I was only able to find one article reviewing the movie, and this does not meet the requirements of receiving significant coverage in order to be notable. The film is also not notable in any other way, as it has not received a major award, and is not historically notable. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hindu : , Subash K Jha's article on rediff : , Ronjita Kulkarni's article on rediff : . Ofcourse this movie is notable as this was one of the very first films in the Indian English genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorathan (talk • contribs) 11:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was able to find many articles covering this movie, unlike the nominator. And this movie was India's official entry for Reel World film festival, Toronto . Here are a few articles on this movie, in India's prominent magazines : on
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —Manorathan (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Manorathan (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep some sources do establish notability of this movie like the times of India article.--117.211.84.226 (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Week keep. News coverage as mentioned above, plus inclusion in a number of books suggest that this film meets the guidelines. Bongo   matic  11:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am satisfied also with the coverage. Thanks Manorathan, thanks Bongo. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * SNOW Keep per seeming lack of before on the part of the nominator, and WP:NF being easily shown to have been met. The copyvio has been addressed (please see my re-written version SEEN HERE) and can be placed over the version that was tagged as copyvio, thus saving the combined histories. Boldness anyone?... as it seems best for the project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn Inks.LWC (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)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.