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 no consensus. There is some coverage of the film, but there's disagreement whether the coverage is sufficient to confer notability, or not. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Yaara Ainvayi Ainvayi Lut Gaya[edit]

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

Nothing on Google that would be an acceptable source. I dream of horses (T) @ 03:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like your typical Bollywood film. I added a few sources. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: it's not a Bollywood film, it's a Punjabi-language film. One could possibly call it Pollywood, but not Bollywood. Softlavender (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this page has been moved around repeatedly. AfD template was removed. It's now at Oh Yaara Ainvayi Ainvayi Lut Gaya, which had already been protected due to persistent vandalism. Not quite sure what is going on. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I restored the AFD tag but for some reason this still links to some other page. Wgolf (talk) 02:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The Times of India sourcing shows that this is notable enough. (Hopefully someone can resolve ~~the naming issue conflicts~~ the duplicate article issue (see: Ainvayi Ainvayi) with this article in the meantime...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Times of India item is not actually about the film and was published a month before the film's release; it's just a tiny announcement that a reality-show contestant would be making her Punjabi debut in it. Does not demonstrate the notability of the film. Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's looking more borderline after reviewing. The Times of India ref contains more than you say – it's about the actress, but does summarize the plot of the movie (but is a "plot [summary] without critical commentary", so maybe doesn't help). The Deccan Herald ref is pretty much just about the actress, so that doesn't count. The Bollywood Life article doesn't seem to help either. The Tribune ref is a straight review (but I think it's more than a capsule review). This one is admittedly marginal, but I still feel like it squeaks by as "Keep". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be argumentative, but it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:MOVIE. The Times of India is just a press-release pre-announcement of the film's opening one month later. It has no author, was obviously submitted by the film company (or the reality-show star's manager), and no one at The Times of India had even seen the film. How can that possibly be counted towards notability? It is not independent of the subject, is not significant coverage, does not establish any notability of the film at all, and preceded the film's release. Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per notability demonstrated by new references added. Also restored AFD template. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After researching it, it seems to me the film has very little notability, and the title and even imagery is a blatant attempt to capitalize on the immense popularity of the 2010 song "Ainvayi Ainvayi". See the production company (if one can call it that) website: [1], and the FB page: [2]. This wiki article has no content except the cast list, there is only one review in a reliable source, and it has no IMDB listing. All of the three refs besides the single review are merely announcements, and two of those are only passing mentions. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MOVIE. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: Yep: this copycat-ism is blatant: The constantly repeated lyrics to "Ainvayi Ainvayi" are "ainvayi ainvayi lut gaya": [3], [4]. No wonder Deepcruze kept moving the article names back and forth and kept coopting the title and the song article -- his edit history indicates that he is a Punjabi trying to promote the film (which is why he also removed the AfD tag from the article). Softlavender (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Oh Yaara Ainvayi Ainvayi Lut Gaya

Keep per having coverage enough to meet WP:NF, no matter the inspiration behind it being made. Heck, almost all Indian films market their music in advance of film release, and it's not a concern if the film promotes a song or a song promotes the film. The concern is whether or not it has enough coverage enough as a film to meet inclusion criteria... and this one does. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note for MichaelQSchmidt: The song is not from this film, it's from a very successful 2010 Bollywood film, Band Baaja Baaraat. This non-notable 2015 film is just a tiny Punjabi indie film trying to ride the song's coattails by titling itself after it and using title prominently to evoke memories of it. Softlavender (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Softlavender, your history lesson/assertion is all well and good, but coverage is coverage... and that's how we can close with a keep. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 17:07, 16 July 2015 (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.