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. joe decker^{talk to me} 16:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bollygraph[edit]

Bollygraph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Unnotable site. Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Secret of success 13:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no significant third party coverage. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:WEB SvenWills (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable website. The site itself also seems newbie, hasnt even covered all films of 2011. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not so notable. No significant coverage about the article could be found. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 18:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I found no coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2012 (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.