Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mone Pore Tomake


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Mone Pore Tomake

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This was previously deleted as the result of a proposed deletion by in March 2021. Recently it has been recreated with four sources. I doubt the author has actually consulted the first two, which are long dead links. Given their titles, dates (15 years after the film was released), and what content they're used to support, it is unlikely that they contained significant coverage of the film. More probably, they're like the third source, which contains a single sentence about it, to the effect that Riaz Ahmed was in school when he made his Bangladeshi debut in the film. The fourth source, BMDB, is not reliable because it says it has copied from Wikipedia, but doesn't say what, so it must be assumed to be WP:CIRCULAR. Searches of the usual types found nothing deeper than passing mentions, no significant coverage. --Worldbruce (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC) Batamore (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per nomination, the subject should be deleted. It lacks reliable sources.
 * Strongly Keep The film was a commercial success. There are hundreds of websites and news links that mentions the film. So, this film to stay here is explicable. Abbasulu (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand that you, as the latest author of an article about it, want to keep it. But can you specifiy any 3 of those many URLs that is independent, reliable, and contains significant coverage of the film? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate list. It aims to treat films in an encyclopedic manner, discussing their development, design, reception, significance, and influence in addition to providing concise summaries of them. If there are no reliable secondary sources containing analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the primary source(s), then Wikipedia should not have a stand alone article on the subject. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails GNG/NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 04:18, 7 November 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.