Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Majaajan
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Majaajan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced article about a remake of an unremarkable Bollywood movie. Could be merged into Choorian (1963 film), which is apparently the original, but can't stand alone. Nolelover 17:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Note: After reading Seren's note, This should be speedied per A10 and redirected. Nolelover 13:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC) NVM :) Nolelover 22:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable remake movie, also no sources found. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 17:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect title to already existing article Majajan It already exists. SilverserenC 22:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Majaajan is about a 2008 Indian film, but Majajan is about a 2006 Pakistani film. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It does not receive in-depth coverage and it does not satisfy WP:FILM. The only source in the article also only provides a passing mention of the film. --Slon02 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2010 (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.