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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abar Basanta Bilap[edit]

Abar Basanta Bilap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The contents of the article have no coherence with the title and neither does it match with the text in the cited reference. Diptanshu 💬 17:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Nom gives no valid reason for deletion. Furthermore, this film clearly satisfies the GNG. See Times of India article already cited, and a bunch more articles from RS, including more from Times of India: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Another failure of WP:BEFORE. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@192.160.216.52:: Have you even checked the links you have posted? Turns out that the latter two have no relevance to the movie in question. Diptanshu 💬 17:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I'm not sure how that happened. Thanks for pointing it out. Anyway, two is enough for the GNG. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Although I had proposed the deletion, it is no longer relevant now since the structure of the article has been improved for good and now there is at least some coherence to the article. The mentioned references (see above) can be added to the article and I myself would do it soon. Diptanshu 💬 17:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine, but the purpose of AfD is not to get people to clean up an article. Before you nominate you're responsible for checking for the existence of sources. See WP:BEFORE. If there are good sources, no matter how lousy the article is, it's not a candidate for deletion. Also see WP:DINC. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about cleanup. The article had no coherence to the topic when the deletion was proposed. Diptanshu 💬 17:55, 17 April 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.