Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ha Ha Hee Hee Ho Ho


 * 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. Sarah-Jane (talk) 10:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Ha Ha Hee Hee Ho Ho

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable film. KDS 4444 Talk  15:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strongly Keep - Who the hell are you to decide which film is remarkable or not? do you even know which indian actor is important and which is not? The film has IMDB page, so the page shouldn't be deleted. Magipur (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , there is absolutely no need to be hostile. On Wikipedia, a film has to be notable per WP:GNG or WP:NF. An IMDb page is not enough; there are many non-notable films (by Wikipedia's standards) that have IMDb pages. See these links and see what can be done to show notability for this film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Can't find any reliable sources discussing it. (Nothing on Highbeam or Jstor as far as I can see.) Film does not appear to meet either WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. /wia   /tlk  18:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - even hindigeetmala.com, muvyz.com and myswar.com has mention about this film. Check it out. So, Its not unimportant film. If a film becomes flop that shouldn't be treated unimportant. ok? Magipur (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , I struck out your repeated stance since you already stated "Strongly Keep" above. Thank you for identifying what websites mention the film, now they need to be assessed to see if they are reliable sources. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutral - Give these guys a chance to add the relevant links and we should come back and vote again.BillWyman (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ALTS:
 * year:
 * director:
 * music:
 * cast:
 * cast:
 * cast:
 * cast:
 * and through WP:INDAFD: "Ha Ha Hee Hee Ho Ho" "P. L. Santoshi" "Vinod" "Raja Gosavi" "Ranjana" "Sajjan" "Shyama"


 * Comment: A poor deletion rationale has brought a 60-year-old pre-internet Indian film to AFD. But as sources such as Tribune India refer to it as a "front row film", is it difficult to imagine that when released 60-years-ago it received news coverage and commentary? Sources that are not archived online?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * CommentThe article writer was not fond of punctuation and cavalier about where to place modifying clauses, but there were odd offbeat titles as far back as the 1950s but of not the front row films like Shin Shinaki Boobla Boo and Ha Ha, Hee Hee, Ho Ho implies that this film was not a front row film (whatever than might mean!). --regentspark (comment) 15:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * what precisely does "front row film" mean? that the audience only ever filled the front row? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha Ha Hee Hee Ho Ho §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * neutral The notability and validity of this article is highly in question, it appears it was either fabricated or added for monetary gain? Just an assumtion but if more can be provided, perhaps we can use it to compare against established guidelines Tyler mongrove (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC) Keep I can't see anything wrong with this article,it has sources46.208.73.116 (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * merely "having sources" is not sufficient. Significant coverage by independent sources is the basis for a presumption of notability, but even that is not a guarantee. And the current sources are not anything like "significant coverage". There are all of two and one is merely a cryptic passing reference about the name weird. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  11:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The bar is being raised too high by these rules which need reviewing.In my opinion any film that receives a theatrical release is notable especially when you consider how many planned films never reach that stage.46.208.73.116 (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * you can make that suggestion for an exception for films at Wikipedia talk:Notability, but i feel you will be just as successful if you start banging your head against a wall. and until, by whatever method, you are successful and the requirements change, we will be using the current requirements. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete insufficient RS coverage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:58, 29 November 2015 (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.