Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takam-Chi (film)

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 no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 01:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Takam-Chi (film)

Takam-Chi (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

tagged for speedy delete, creator removed tag. title returns no google results. ninety:one 21:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete: Seems rather like nonsense to me, as absolutely NOTHING comes up on Google, Ask, Yahoo or DogPile. Note: There is a second similar article on Wikipedia, Takam-Chi, which mentions the film. However, this page was only created recently too.--Seahamlass (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: As I wrote elsewhere, it is a sad day when Google is considered to be source of knowledge. What I do not understand is: why should I have initiated the entry Takam-Chi (film) if this film did not exist? After all, I did not join Wikipedia today of yesterday? Moreover, there is no history suggesting that I might have perpetrated hoaxs here or elsewhere. Why do some people think that if something does not exist according to Google, that thing must not exist at all? Have we become robots? In this particular case, the film at issue was release only two days ago! How could Google possibly have a record of it? Why such a haste? --BF 23:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete; Google will turn up films that won't be released for years; films aren't made in a day, you know. Even after we put aside any question of a hoax, what about the standards for WP:NF? The fact that there's no source on the net, no matter how brief or unreliable, is not a good sign that this film has reliable sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep; okay, we have at least one cite in the article. If it had been there from the start, this all would have been a lot easier.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Google Persian turns up a lot of hits [[1]]. Sometimes, some things might not be well known in the English speaking world and I think Wikipedia is a good way to introduce it. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Then add some appropriate cites to that article. That'll make it at least possible to try and discuss the cites and whether it's notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay I added one. There are more, but I guess one is enough to show the film exists :) --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Its a real movie as you can see here [2].Nokhodi (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
    • If you can read thatand tell what it says, why do you add it to the article as a cite?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


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.