Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goecha La: In Search of the Holy Kangchenjunga


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Goecha La: In Search of the Holy Kangchenjunga

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Minor travel film that has not shown notability per WP:NFILM. Of sources provided in the article, all are non-independent (such as links to web postings of the video) or unreliable (IMDb), except for the India Express article (a link to which was provided, but that was a copyright violation, so I removed it). I searched the Times of India on June 10, 2012, and could not find the article cited. Further internet searches have not found additional reliable independent sources. Article as a whole seems primarily promotional, produced by users and IPs who have largely only edited this article--and a user, Geoshrad, who has the same name as the distribution company. Michitaro (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

i watched it in youtube, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.202.132.98 (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TheSpecialUser TSU 06:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. Sources provided are either non-independent or unreliable, and a Google search returned no reliable sources. The purported Times of India article was nowhere to be found. -- TYelliot &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  07:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 4 September 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.