Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rege

:{{la|Rege}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rege Stats])

:({{Find sources|Rege}})

Does not comply with WP:Movie. Could also apply as WP:TOOSOON since the movie was released in 2014. The movie itself does not even have an entry on IMDb, so the notability of the movie is brought into question. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

:Marathi:({{Find sources|रेगे}})

• Keep this brand new article. Meets WP:NFILM. Toward existence of this non-English film, we may look to non-English sources and, taking into account the common-ness of the term "रेगे" making searches difficult, accept with good faith that some of [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%97%E0%A5%87%22&tbm=nws&gws_rd=ssl THESE] discuss the film as do the citations within the article. I am sorry the nominator either missed or decided that a lengthy review in [http://www.dnaindia.com/blogs/post-marathi-film-review-rege-merges-two-distinct-strands-of-society-to-tell-a-gritty-tale-2011056 Daily News & Analysis] somehow meant this released film was not released in August. Notes to {{u|Aerospeed|the nominator}}: Remember WP:BITE... and IMDB is considered "unreliable" and does not contain every film ever made, specially Marathi films. Not being in that unreliable and incomplete database means little. and TOO SOON is best when applied to unreleased films. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Article [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rege&diff=623854325&oldid=623854243 was PRODed] in ten minutes of creation while it still had claims of notability in it like the good critic ratings and good financial success as well for first three days opening. Those claims themselves are sufficient for keeping the article. Don't know why the PROD was removed and converted to AfD by same editor. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep • The subject is notable and have significant coverage in reliable sources. CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:17, 7 September 2014 (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.