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.
Article
Buddhan Chirikkunnu is about a up-coming movie which is not showing any significant it maybe possible in future this article can be useful on Wikipedia. WOWIndianTalk 08:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. WOWॐIndianTalk 14:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails
WP:NF. This article is talking about a movie which is not even released. News like movie, song and politics have high trends somehow it is a part of media. It is requested that please read the third section of
Wikipedia:Notability (films). WOWIndianTalk 09:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I've struck the duplicate delete !vote above (your nomination is taken as a delete !vote). However, feel free to comment all you'd like.
NorthAmerica1000 09:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
From
Wikipedia:Notability (films), "For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline is sufficient to follow.". The guidelines (i) significant coverage in (ii) reliable (iii) secondary sources (iv) independent of the subject. It being significant is a weak point here, it would seem. What purpose does it serve? It serves the purpose of gathering enough redundancy for writing a small article, whose each statement would be verifiable; but in my view, existing coverage sufficiently verbose for starting a small article.
Gryllida (
talk) 09:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. I find that two sources, Indian Express and The Hindu, are reliable, and are enough to be able to give a verbose, accurate, verifiable account of the article subject. I would oppose deletion here, as I see notability secondary; it's just a way to say "I don't think we can trust your sources enough to write accurate verifiable information about your article subject"; this time, I think I can.
Gryllida (
talk) 09:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep Sourcing in English is sparse, but there's enough out there to scrape past
WP:GNG.
Yunshui雲
水 11:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep i dont understand why is it even nominated for deletion
Irvin calicut (
talk) 12:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
It was nominated for deletion since no references were found, I request you to use the tool provided above to find the sources and let me know if you see any reference about this article. WOWIndianTalk 12:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
With respect, as I mention below - at the time you nominated this, there were already 3 reliable sources. I'm not sure why you say there were no references found? PhantomSteve/
talk|
contribs\ 12:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - with respect to the nominator, at the time of his nomination of this article, there were 3 reliable sources provided (Times of India, The Hindu, The New Indian Express). For me, this shows enough interest in this film from reliable sources to meet the
GNG. PhantomSteve/
talk|
contribs\ 12:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: The references you are naming
Phantomsteve, the Times of Indian, The Hindu and Indian Express have very less or minor information about the topic and the contents of the article. In the case of times of India it is taking about Playback singer G Venugopal turns music director and in the case of indian express it is taking about A Comedian's Tribute to Chaplin. WOWIndianTalk 13:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Granted, the Times of India is a minor mention, but The Hindu has 5 paragraphs, while The Indian Express has 2 paragraphs about this film. This clearly meets the General Notability Guidelines. I understand the idea behind your nomination - most new, not-yet-released films do not generally meet notability - they generally have a sentence or two written about them, not enough to establish notability. In this case, however, there is enough interest from reliable sources to indicate that it meets the basic level of notability. PhantomSteve/
talk|
contribs\ 13:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm afraid to ask why
Mr.WOWIndian is showing much willingness to delete this article? I wrote this article based on info I got from Newspapers. And I've given all reliable references I've got
there. Also, since I'm a
Malayali I know more about this film. Because I've read about this film from
Deepika_(newspaper) and other
Malayalam-language Newspapers.--
Joseph 14:19, 13 March 2014 (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.
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.
Article
Buddhan Chirikkunnu is about a up-coming movie which is not showing any significant it maybe possible in future this article can be useful on Wikipedia. WOWIndianTalk 08:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. WOWॐIndianTalk 14:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails
WP:NF. This article is talking about a movie which is not even released. News like movie, song and politics have high trends somehow it is a part of media. It is requested that please read the third section of
Wikipedia:Notability (films). WOWIndianTalk 09:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I've struck the duplicate delete !vote above (your nomination is taken as a delete !vote). However, feel free to comment all you'd like.
NorthAmerica1000 09:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
From
Wikipedia:Notability (films), "For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline is sufficient to follow.". The guidelines (i) significant coverage in (ii) reliable (iii) secondary sources (iv) independent of the subject. It being significant is a weak point here, it would seem. What purpose does it serve? It serves the purpose of gathering enough redundancy for writing a small article, whose each statement would be verifiable; but in my view, existing coverage sufficiently verbose for starting a small article.
Gryllida (
talk) 09:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. I find that two sources, Indian Express and The Hindu, are reliable, and are enough to be able to give a verbose, accurate, verifiable account of the article subject. I would oppose deletion here, as I see notability secondary; it's just a way to say "I don't think we can trust your sources enough to write accurate verifiable information about your article subject"; this time, I think I can.
Gryllida (
talk) 09:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep Sourcing in English is sparse, but there's enough out there to scrape past
WP:GNG.
Yunshui雲
水 11:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep i dont understand why is it even nominated for deletion
Irvin calicut (
talk) 12:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
It was nominated for deletion since no references were found, I request you to use the tool provided above to find the sources and let me know if you see any reference about this article. WOWIndianTalk 12:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
With respect, as I mention below - at the time you nominated this, there were already 3 reliable sources. I'm not sure why you say there were no references found? PhantomSteve/
talk|
contribs\ 12:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep - with respect to the nominator, at the time of his nomination of this article, there were 3 reliable sources provided (Times of India, The Hindu, The New Indian Express). For me, this shows enough interest in this film from reliable sources to meet the
GNG. PhantomSteve/
talk|
contribs\ 12:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: The references you are naming
Phantomsteve, the Times of Indian, The Hindu and Indian Express have very less or minor information about the topic and the contents of the article. In the case of times of India it is taking about Playback singer G Venugopal turns music director and in the case of indian express it is taking about A Comedian's Tribute to Chaplin. WOWIndianTalk 13:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Granted, the Times of India is a minor mention, but The Hindu has 5 paragraphs, while The Indian Express has 2 paragraphs about this film. This clearly meets the General Notability Guidelines. I understand the idea behind your nomination - most new, not-yet-released films do not generally meet notability - they generally have a sentence or two written about them, not enough to establish notability. In this case, however, there is enough interest from reliable sources to indicate that it meets the basic level of notability. PhantomSteve/
talk|
contribs\ 13:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm afraid to ask why
Mr.WOWIndian is showing much willingness to delete this article? I wrote this article based on info I got from Newspapers. And I've given all reliable references I've got
there. Also, since I'm a
Malayali I know more about this film. Because I've read about this film from
Deepika_(newspaper) and other
Malayalam-language Newspapers.--
Joseph 14:19, 13 March 2014 (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.