Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hum Sab Chor Hain (1956 film)


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hum Sab Chor Hain (1956 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to IMDb (not WP:RS) since creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search didn't even turn up the plot (which the article lacks0, let alone anythng in-depth. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete seems not notable. Just to note; article was created by a sock. --TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I know - I have it and a couple of others bookmarked, and am slowly working my way through their efforts like this one. Narky Blert (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is moving to 'Draft' WP:DRAFTIFY and recommendation to rework the article, and introduce into mainspace, an option? If so, I would recommend that. This seems to be a movie by a very popular actor of his time, Shammi Kapoor. There might be some merit in exploring this in the WP:DRAFT space. Kaisertalk (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Notability is not WP:INHERITED. There's no point in draftifying if there are no sources. Narky Blert (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete articles sourced only to IMDb should not be allowed to stand 4 days, let alone 4 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per all of the above Spiderone  09:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not believe that SIGCOV is met: sources have to be both independent of the topic and indicate persistence of coverage, neither of which is the case. ——  Serial  17:19, 19 July 2020 (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.