Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machan(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The result was   keep, nomination withdrawn. BencherliteTalk 21:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Machan(film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Insufficient secondary source coverage. TYelliot &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  19:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (Fixed nom by completing Step III (add to log). Please close seven days after 06:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep One:, Two , Three . Pretty sure that constitutes secondary source coverage. It literally took half a minute to find those.. -- snowolf D4  (  talk  /  @   ) 22:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Sources found prove its notable.  D r e a m Focus  09:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close  The nominator may certainly have been acting in good faith when he sent this article directly to AFD when it was just three hours old without first tagging it for concerns nor speaking with the new author about how it might be improved.  But the fact that so MANY reliable sources were easily found  makes me request that he give more consideration to the instructions at WP:BEFORE prior to nominating anything in the future, specially as WP:Deletion policy explains the valid grounds for deletion, and strongly encourages that if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing.  It was quite easy to take the nomimated stub and expand and source it.  And I hope the newb author has not been chased away.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominator withdrawal I withdraw the nomination per large number of secondary sources. TYelliot  &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  19:47, 23 March 2011 (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.