Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladesh Booty (2nd nomination)

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Booty

Poorly sourced, not notable film, previously deleted. NoVomit (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first and the second reasons given have never been reasons for deletion. Notability claims are already there, making the second reason invalid. By Wikipedia guidelines this shouldn't even come to a deletion discussion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First AfD was for an article that was essentially jibberish. This second article seems well written (for what it is). Lack of sources is no reason to delete when sources are certainly available. Per WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD this article should be kept and improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up as needed. Notability stems from the title and ethnic representation which in Bangladesh would seem to directly contradict Islam, the religion of the majority. I think this should be touched upon and made clear she is in America, etc and up to then films had promoted her as different ethnicities. -- Banjeboi 08:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Film with no coverage in reliable sources also has no credible claim to notability. Valrith (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A major newspaper from her homeland is reliable source. What else is there to ask for? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to be about Jazmin, not the film. Thus it would lend towards her notability, but not that of the film.Horrorshowj (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2009 (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.