Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hami tin bhai


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) --  Ascii002 ( talk  ·  contribs  ·  guestbook ) 10:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hami tin bhai

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Something seems off about this page. Links go to unreliable places, no plot at all.... Wgolf (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC) withdraw
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. English language sources for Nepali films are difficult to find, but we do have reliable source E Kantipur telling us the film is considered one of Shree Krishna Shrestha's "memorable flicks".  We can reasonable presume Nepali language sources exist for a "memorable flick". The article has issues, but it is not a policy violation. We have a suitable stub that can be improved over time and through regular editing from editors able to access and read Nepali sources under WP:NONENG.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 13:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I added an additional reliable source describing the film as "successful" (director's obituary). As Schmidt,  reasoned above, Nepali sources and editors are hard to find and the stub can be expanded over time. To aid in that expansion, I also added an alternative transliteration and the Nepali name. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't like the ref's but they clearly prove notability, even if it's on a small scale... Jcmcc450 (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn-okay so it is a odd page but it seems there is some notability now. Wgolf (talk) 21:28, 5 March 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.