Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pension (film)


 * 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. Consensus is that sufficient sources have been supplied. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Pension (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No GNG, no sigcov, Looks promotional attempt. Only two sources that too not independent and definitely not reliable. thanks Queer Eco feminist [they/them/their] 14:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Queer Eco feminist [they/them/their] 14:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Queer Eco feminist [they/them/their] 14:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, Times of India is a reliable source, so that review counts towards notability. Donald D23   talk to me  16:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The view that Times of India is a reliable source is open to debate, to say the least. JBW (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not what this discussion says.  For films, TOI is reliable.  Donald D23   talk to me  19:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Two reviews are enough for WP:NFILM. TOI has issues for sure but for film reviews, it can be considered. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unbelievable. The film exists. Users are likely to look it up. How on Earth is WP improved by deleting useful information from it? Notability and Afd need a serious revamp. In the meantime, if anyone needs policy basis to keep, look no further than WP:IAR to limit the damage of our well-meaning but destructive current guidelines. —В²C ☎ 14:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You really need to stop with these kinds of posts. If you want to alter our notability requirements, open an RfC at the Village Pump. Mlb96 (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I don’t, that’s just a stonewalling tactic because you can’t change the guideline first. —В²C ☎ 06:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as has independent reviews in three national newspapers now referenced in the article so passes WP:GNG with dedicated secondary coverage so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 03:30, 25 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.