Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peechha Karo


 * 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. Tone 13:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Peechha Karo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable film, nothing found in a WP:BEFORE to help pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability for 2 years. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 11:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * DeleteI should have AFD'd this myself, but gave them too much time to sort it it, and then forgot about it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone  11:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: Nothing to show notability, IDMB is generally not a good source.  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. This page follows many other pages that I have been observing in the last few weeks (and perhaps before that as well), of Indian films from the 1950-1980s, that have been showing up for deletion. By the current rules of WP:NFILM, they all fall short of the requirements, primarily because of the lack of English language online sources of reviews for these films, resulting in an undue number of films from the 1990s. This should be a topic of discussion for one of the India Projects, to think through at an aggregate rather than discussing each of the films on a one on one basis in an AfD. I agree with the high level sentiment that Wikipedia is not IMDB. However, in the same vein, Wikipedia is not just a replication avenue other recent online sources (read as recent newspapers). Ktin (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete We literally cannot justify keeping an article that lacks any reliable sourcing. These are individual articles on indivdual films and should be discussed individually. There are no requirements for either language or median of existence for sources. If Ktin can find any sources by any method that have relvance to this article, he is free to add them and then mention them in the discussion. Wikipedia does not keep articles just because there might be sources, we need to clearly show the sources exist. Ktin has failed to show sources exist in any way. We need an end to proceduralist defence of junk stub articles like this being on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Its been tagged for 2 years, that should have been enough time if there were any.Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Only two years? I didn't know we ever acted on anything tagged under 5. OK, 2 years is way more than enough time. We are still suffering from the free-for all, Wild West, unregulated growth conditions that prevailed in Wikipedia in the earliest years, at least through 2006, and in many ways until 2010 and even a little later.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion about older Indian films at AFD here that kinda gets into the difficulty to find sources. I've found one site that seems to have at least the basics on older files here, but it's user-driven, like the old IMDB and isn't really a good source for notability. Hollywood films have good print resources for older films, but those aren't easy to find for Indian films.  Sadly, you're going to find a lot of well-intended but woefully undersourced articles on older Indian films.  Ravensfire  (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I found and added a review from 2018 - still not enough to get over NFILM, but there at least one source now.  Ravensfire  (talk) 17:29, 10 September 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.