Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uljhan

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. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 16:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uljhan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM tagged for sources since 2012 nothing added except for IMDB. Nothing of note found in a WP:BEFORE search Dom from Paris (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-A film featuring quite-well-known actors and having songs sung and directed by maestros ought to have got sufficient coverage (reviews etc.) in local sources.And, sources/reviews about Indian film(s) from 1970s (a time from when most newspaper archives aren't online) shall-not be expected to be online/easily available.And surely, this ain't a hoax.Don't cite AADD in response to my argument(s).Sort of IAR:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 06:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I won't cite that!! But there is nothing written in the article that suggests that this film was a hit at the time and would have got significant coverage. As it says it was the main actor's first film so he wouldn't have been well-known at the time so not sure that there would have been much coverage. There are no box office figures nothing to back up the claims that the music was popular there are no sources from recent times that suggests that the film is viewed as a classic and worthy of being in an encyclopedia today. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm..A film can be notable irrespective of whether it is a hit.Music-sales-figures are pretty impossible to source and that's not a good piece of evidence of popularity in Bollywood-music-industry which works so differently from Hollywood.And, don't get fooled by the crappy looks of Kalyanji–Anandji, one of the most-notable music-directors in Bollywood.You can try randomly pinging any Indian pedian in good standing (Spaceman Spiff and Shyamal, two long term sysops are ones who come to mind) and they can provide some additional insights.But, you are obviously free to have a different opinion....~ Winged Blades^Godric 10:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Winged Blades' assessment. London Hall (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NEXIST which covers any source issues. Clearly notable and Winged Blade is correct.BabbaQ (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2018 (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.