Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jalna (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   keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Jalna (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This was deleted before, but was recreated. Wanting further community input, I have nominated it here. Thekillerpenguin    (talk)   03:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe this may help. E Wing (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looks like a real movie, but the article itself is of the lowest possible value.  Unless the creator decides to make it at least one paragraph with a few references, it should be removed.  LogicalCreator (talk) 04:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jalna (novel). The movie was based on the novel, is mentioned in that article, and the novel's article already has a much better description of the subject matter. Lady  of  Shalott  04:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing to keep per improvements. I suggest to the article creator that the article as originally nominated was not suitable for mainspace, even if notable - that is why I said redirect. In the future, making use of your sandbox until article has at least a couple good sentences and references will go a long way towards preventing discussions like this. Lady  of  Shalott  13:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's got well known actors and was reviewed by The New York Times. Needing cleanup is not a valid reason to delete the article. I'll expand it in short order. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to the NYTimes reviews, Leonard Malta reviewed the film as seen here.JoelWhy (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as per LadyofShalott. I'd second the notion that some time in the sandbox would do wonders for this sort of article. But now it's been cleaned up and referenced, which is half of the reason for AFD in the first place. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:09, 1 May 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.