Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungama in Dubai

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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hungama in Dubai

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.Delete as my searches actually found nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 23:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry SwisterTwister, I think I looked deeper than you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)':[reply]

For instance @SwisterTwister: Here's a decent review from The Hindu. Your missing it does not make it non-existent. So pardon, but what else was missed in poor BEFORE? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

expanded searches:

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

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

WP:INDAFD "Hungama in Dubai" "Masood Ali" "Aziz Naser" "Dheer Charan Srivastav" "DC Srivastav" "Mast Ali"

Keep My own searches found the film many times referred to as a "successful" or "well received" film,[1][2][3][4][5][6] allowing me to make the reasonable conclusion that in 2007 the film received more coverage. Better that issues be addressed than the topic be deleted outright. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MichaelQSchmidt has done a great job trying to improve the article, and I had missed The Hindu Review. I'm not convinced it's quite enough, but it now appears quite borderline. Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this one may squeak by, based on the sources found by Schmidt. In addition to the full review in The Hindu, multiple other reliable sources mention the film in the past tense but in positive ways - calling it successful, or saying that one of the stars is still known for his role in this film. I'm inclined to think it has sufficient notability for an article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 16 February 2016 (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.