Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matal (2018)


 * 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Matal (2018)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable film, no significant coverage from WP:RS, no significant review or anything. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: the article was deleted previously, see Matal (2018 film) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because the subject is currently redirecting to Matal (film).
 * Current redirect ↪ Matal (film)
 * Logs:
 * --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Sources are not significant coverage. Delete per nominator. ~Yahya ( ✉ ) • 21:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  03:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Matal (film). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not a clone of IMDb, which aims to list the credits of every film ever made. To provide encyclopedic value, Wikipedia puts data in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. We are supposed to treat creative works in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works.
 * From before the film was released, there is plenty of promotional hype by people invested in in it. Searches of the usual Google types, in English and Bengali, for coverage after the film was released, however, found only brief mentions: and . The film exists, but there has been no independent journalistic coverage or critical analysis of it. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2021 (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.