Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aakheer

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. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 12:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aakheer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability, lack of coverage in reliable publications. Dr. Blofeld 12:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NF, though with no assertion of notability it could technically be speedy.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very short, non-notable article. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This film is not historically notable.--Lester 15:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for films. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 03:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the article itself, which says "It went unnoticed at the box office." It's hard to find a clearer assertion of non-notability than that. Edward321 (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It sounds like a joke to me. Anyway as Ed just said it asserts its own non-notability. Wolfview (talk) 05:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had the film itself or its poor box-office receipts been commented upon in enough sources, even a total flop could show notability. However, this one does not. We can prove its existance, and its filmmaker, but not its notability. Perhaps we may one day have an article on the director, and it can then be mentioned there as one of his early flops in context to his having remade the this 2002 film in 2007. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.