Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How Funny


 * 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 keep. Closing this as keep after the discussion has been listed for more than three weeks. With 's expansion, nom's withdrawal, and one delete !vote effectively changed to "Keep", only the "Delete at best" !vote - whatever that in reality means - is outstanding. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor Talk! 15:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

How Funny

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article fails WP:NFILM with the only references provided establish that the film was released not how the film is notable. Dan arndt (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC) Dan arndt (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I am prepared to withdraw my nomination on the basis that has made a significant number of improvements (including the provision of reliable independent references), which means that I now consider the article satisfies the basic tennents of WP:FILM however as there are a number of delete votes I'd prefer that an Admin closes the debate. Dan arndt (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. What may make a close easy for an admin is that even though their deletes have been addressed though regular editing, relatively new account, has limited experience and doesn't add content, and  does not revisit discussions where he has been proven incorrect. Their opinions were toward the unimproved version and thus have far less import.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NFILM Sheepythemouse (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Considering the state of the article at the time, I believe a deletion vote was in order. However, a lot of good improvements have been made, so, at this time, I'd say that this is not an article that should be deleted. Sheepythemouse (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, Nepalese films are sometimes difficult to source, but...
 * type:
 * director:
 * studio:
 * studio:
 * lead:
 * lead:
 * star:
 * star:
 * WP:INDAFD: How Funny Nilu Doma Sherpa Priyanka Karki Keki Adhikari Dayahang Rai Nisha Adhikari Eyecore Filmsl Tiny But Big Pictures

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per meeting WP:NF as a source that says it has released and speaks (even if briefly) toward a film project directly and in more-than-trivial detail is exactly what criteria requires. In my own looking, I quickly and easily found representative more: And to the  and to, I politely remind that notability is based upon sources BEING available and not upon their use in an article.  I humbly share the fun of diligence and the India media search tools of WP:INDAFD. Better we work to improve this per what is available, than delete it because it is an ugly stub... IMHO,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I am presuming that your comments are reliant on criteria 2 of WP:NFILM, in which a film is considered notable if it is subject of the 'publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.' Some of the sources you have cited are questionable about whether they are 'reliable' sources however others such as The Kathmandu Post and the onlinekhabar.com review are probably enough to get it over the line. The article itself does need a lot of work to bring it up to acceptable standards. Dan arndt (talk) 05:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Response Since it's a 2016 film, anyone's expecting sources "5 years after release" is an incorrect argument under WP:N's "Other evidence of notability". That argument "might" be best used AFTER 2021. For this newer film I am relying simply on WP:N's "General principles".  While yes, it does need work, its needing work is also not a proper deletion rational.  See WP:IMPERFECT, WP:HANDLE, WP:IMPROVE, etc. Just sayin'.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best as the listed news links above are still questionable regarding the, at best, substance at making an convincingly better article, if that's all, then there's nothing else better to suggest accepting. Delete at best. SwisterTwister   talk  23:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but I've noted many of your delete opinions elsewhere have been proven incorrect. Did you even perform any research prior to offering your "opinions" here?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see that you have recently tagged the article as being subject of an expansion or major restructuring. In that regard I would suggest that any decision on this AfD should be held off for a few days until those improvements have been completed. Dan arndt (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What began as a poor stub, has become a decent start class IMHO.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, Schmidt's expansion and sourcing clearly demonstrate notability (I suspect there is a lot more, but difficult to find because of some obvious language barriers). Cavarrone 09:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep this AfD should be closed already. Kudos to for the large improvements made on the article. Unlikely that  will revisit this AfD and change their vote. st170e talk  13:06, 19 June 2016 (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.