Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mantra (2016 film) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Mantra (2016 film)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I've removed a cherry-picked gushing review, but it's not clear to me why this film is notable or whether its references are genuine independent third-party sources Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, in all fairness it is just like any other Bollywood release. The article's current state might not reflect that, but it was covered by film critics and Bollywood trade analysts like any other film. I could expand using the reliable sources if you decide to keep it.  Vedant  Talk  14:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep has some coverage in reliable sources. Please recheck the Quint review removed as it had criticism as well as praise and shouldn't have been removed as it is a reliable source. Atlantic306 (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - I am also not sure why the review was removed. It basically praised the lead actor, but said the script wasn't good enough and "failed him". This in no way qualifies as a gushing review. Multiple opinions would be better yes, but one review is better than none, I don't feel it was cherry picked. I restored the section with a minor copyedit it's 1st sentence. WikiVirusC (talk)</b> 15:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Has enough to establish notability, but the article itself is terribly written. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  04:41, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep A WP:BEFORE shows that the film has been extensively reviewed (even though negative) in multiple independent sources like here, here and here. So should easily pass WP:NFSOURCES --  Hagennos Talk 14:04, 27 February 2018 (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.