Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aashiqui.in

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aashiqui.in[edit]

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

Non-notable recent film; "sourcing" is feeble, no assertion (credible or otherwise) of notability. This is a cast and soundtrack list, not an article. Orange Mike | Talk 01:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than the one brief review cited in the article, I can't find much else to suggest it is notable. And if the movie was as lousy as that one review makes out, then it's understandable why it's been ignored. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Not notable. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an improvable article on a crappy film that is receiving more-than-trivial attention perhaps for being so bad.[1][2][3] Wikipedia is not to be only about those films that are winners. Notability depends on coverage. If a crap film meets inclusion criteria, we may have an article on that topic.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Schmidt... While this Indian film's plot may not sound promising and not worth that few bucks, Wikipedia does not have articles only on winning films everybody would pay to watch. As lousy as it is, it (narrowly) meets our notability criteria. And as such, KEEP. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep it meets the notability requirements for films, which do not include anyone having thought they were good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Davey2010 Talk 20:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Not notable. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets source requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (films), although not by a wide margin. Source examples: [4], [5], [6]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:46, 14 April 2013 (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.