Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dusari Goshta

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The result was Nomination withdrawn - . Ekabhishek^talk 02:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dusari Goshta[edit]

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

The film haven't received any good coverage after release. No independent sources and fails as per film notability. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 12:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep Links have been added indicating coverage in the Times of India and at Maharashtra Movie World. Still a bit sketchy, but it's a start. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NF fails and the sources are not reliables Hidzoko (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Dusari Goshta Chandrakant Kulkarni

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

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

Keep Sorry Hidzoko, but WP:BEFORE is great advice and a full length review in Times of India shows a meeting of WP:NF. Sorry nominator, but that full-length review is the kind of independent coverage thatWP:NF requires. Lacking use of available sources is not a deletion rationale, but rather one calling for improvement through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline Keep per sources provided, The article certainly needs expanding and sourcing but hopefully that'll be fixed. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per MichaelQSchmidt's sources and quite honestly amazing major improvements to the article, Thanks Michael!, Also Why didn't ~~Hidzoko~~ A.Minkowiski bother to either find sources or even improve the article? .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you. Just took a little time as so many sources existed. I have no idea how it was the nominator and Hidzoko both failed to find any of the many reliable sources. Be well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Upgrade to keep. Once again, MichaelQSchmidt has proven his formidable talents on saving film articles. Kudos! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to have done so. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nominated within 15 minutes of creation, the nominator should try reading WP:COMPETENCE and Wikipedia:BITE (its created by a new user with only 9 live edits so far). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be an WP:ADHOM, but the one remaining delete is from a brand new editor with even fewer edits and his own issues in the understanding of WP:RS and WP:N. He has been invited to return to this discussion. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nomination withdrawn per improvements made. I didn't find this film successful at Box office plus in big cinemas after search. But thanks Schmidt, for your good efforts here to make it successful if it is quite successful at this time. I know there are other sources too, but I had looked at the major sources like Film outcomes plus film ranking in Box office etc. Present sources also show good coverage, I hope to withdraw the nomination if all of you are agree. Thanks A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 06:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe any uninvolved editor might close this as a resounding keep per either WP:SNOW or WP:OUTCOMES or even WP:SK. New editor Hidzoko was invited to return as article has been markedly improved since he decided the Times of India was somehow unreliable. As his opinion does not follow Guideline or policy and is in error, it can be disregarded. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:32, 18 June 2014 (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.