Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meri Jung Ka Elaan


 * 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. While there is a basically an even headcount between those who think the article should be kept and those who believe it should be deleted, those who have advocated keep have established that the article is Verifiable but not necessarily how it is notable. As those who suggest the article be deleted have suggested how those sources do not establish notability, there is therefore, when weighing consensus, a delete outcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Meri Jung Ka Elaan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable film, tagged since September 2011. A WP:BEFORE turned up film database sites, youtube videos, and other wikis. Even the Hindi language Wikipedia article doesn't have any citations that could help this film pass WP:NFILM, as it needs at least 2 reviews and none are to be found. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this article is nothing more than an IMdB mirror. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - with no reviews and no reliable sources available, deletion is the only option available Spiderone  20:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:NOTINHERITED and the "there should be sources" argument is generally one to avoid Spiderone  10:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Donaldd23 (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC) :::::::Also, if you feel certain films are notable, then why not remove the "notability" tag on them? I almost exclusively send articles with that tag to PROD or AfD as I check Category:Film articles with topics of unclear notability daily. If the tag is removed I probably wouldn't see it and I wouldn't send it to AfD and you wouldn't have to defend it. I'm not trying to argue with you, just giving my rationale as to why these articles are sent to Afd/PROD by me. Thanks. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Striking above comments because the user I was replying to removed their comments from the discussion. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - sources added, a B-grade film, but definitely notable. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  09:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourced.† Encyclopædius  12:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. A frivolous nomination. A quick search would have shown the film was discussed by various sources, as one would expect. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, Sourced? Maybe, but all the citations added are passing mentions, articles about the actors, a list in a book...no reviews. It was tagged for notability since 2011, so I looked for reviews and found none (as apparently none of you did either). Film articles need reviews to pass WP:NFILM, but I nominated it to get rid of the notability tag and if these "passing mentions" get the article kept then the notability tag will be removed...which was my goal.  Thanks for adding frivolous citations. Donaldd23 (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * - I have to say, I spent quite some time looking for the citations, including digging in several archives to save this article, so I don't appreciate you labelling them "frivolous". Among the citations, by the way, there's an entire page dedicated to the film's box-office performance, and another mention of its first-weak performance in theatres; as for the book, the film has an entry in there, which is far from just a mention, and not to be dismissed so easily. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  19:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to allow deeper discussion of the sources that have been presented

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The SandDoctor  Talk 05:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [gab] ||  05:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Most sources presented are passing mentions, lacking significant coverage. Box office figures with no critical commentary would not meet the criteria of WP:NFSOURCES, in my view. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG or WP:NFILM as it does not have "significant coverage". Most of the references are the very definition of "insignificant coverage": they mention the name of the film and almost nothing more. The Box Office India page is merely a recitation of basic box office data and doesn't include any reviews or other proof that the film has independent notability.Aervanath (talk) 16:56, 2 November 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.