- 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. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Grrr (2024 film)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Grrr (2024 film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed draftify. Movie not presently notable. Coverage consists of press releases,
WP:CHURNALISM press releases, and release date coverage.
microbiologyMarcus
petri dish·
growths 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn.
microbiologyMarcus
petri dish·
growths
12:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - There is nothing in this article that addresses either
general notability or
film notability. This article does not
speak for itself, and there is no mention of
significant coverage.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
15:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes there is and plenty of coverage exists....Not sure why we're here. The page was improved but nominators (and in my view, Delete !voters too) should check existing sources before voting. Inviting you to kindly reconsider your !vote. Best, -
My, oh my!
(Mushy Yank)
20:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- User:Mushy Yank - In my opinion, the burden of checking for sources is on article authors even before it is on nominators. Article authors should wait until the sources exist before moving the article into article space in the expectation that there will be reviews. A film article with no reviews is a film article that should have stayed in draft space or user space until the reviews were published. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- To explain:
Not sure why we're here
. We are here because the article author wrote an article with no Reception section. That is why we are here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)- No comment. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes there is and plenty of coverage exists....Not sure why we're here. The page was improved but nominators (and in my view, Delete !voters too) should check existing sources before voting. Inviting you to kindly reconsider your !vote. Best, -
My, oh my!
(Mushy Yank)
20:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Reviews in The Week, and The Hindu would be enough to keep this. And there's more coverage (including OTHER REVIEWS in South First, Tribune, Onmanorama, The News Minute, Times Now)... So non-notable, how, why? This meets GNG and NFILM. A redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2024 should have been considered anyway before nomination as ATD. So, I am very sorry but I think this may have been a bit hasty, and am inviting the nominator to kindly withdraw. The person who moved this to Main was right. Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: I also couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, aside from some churnalism or press releases based coverage, so this clearly fails GNG. Saqib ( talk) 21:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)- Courtesy @ 2pou: who draftified this. — Saqib ( talk) 21:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I also couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage
: thank you for your efforts, but just read the page then, and open the links of the 9 reviews (and there are probably more). :D))) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)-
Mushy Yank, I recall you advising me previously that I don't need to reply to every comment. However, you also engage in doing so. I've made my point, and I don't feel the need to argue with anyone further. —
Saqib (
talk)
22:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wasn't me. I don't remember having advised you not to do so (I noted it is a routine of yours, and even said (twice, maybe) I personally didn't mind). But your !vote seems so ....pardon me, bizarre and unexplainable to me, that I thought I would give you a chance to amend it. Never mind. You didn't find any sig/in-depth coverage when NINE reviews, including some in major Indian newspapers, have been presented? Sure. OK. I must assume good faith then... -
My, oh my!
(Mushy Yank)
22:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Mushy Yank, In short. No, I don't see any coverage here that can help establish GNG. — Saqib ( talk) 22:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wasn't me. I don't remember having advised you not to do so (I noted it is a routine of yours, and even said (twice, maybe) I personally didn't mind). But your !vote seems so ....pardon me, bizarre and unexplainable to me, that I thought I would give you a chance to amend it. Never mind. You didn't find any sig/in-depth coverage when NINE reviews, including some in major Indian newspapers, have been presented? Sure. OK. I must assume good faith then... -
My, oh my!
(Mushy Yank)
22:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
-
Mushy Yank, I recall you advising me previously that I don't need to reply to every comment. However, you also engage in doing so. I've made my point, and I don't feel the need to argue with anyone further. —
Saqib (
talk)
22:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Kerala. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Not sure why this AfD came up or if a WP:Before was done. So many reliable reviews... I would even advise a Snow Keep. DareshMohan ( talk) 02:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: Reviews in the article are more than enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 02:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: The film released yesterday (June 14) and has multiple reliable reviews which satisfy WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly enough coverage since its release yesterday. hinnk ( talk) 07:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- As nominator, withdrawn and keep in light of the new sources. microbiologyMarcus petri dish· growths 12:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per above passes WP:NFILM. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, those voting delete have given no proper reasoning as to why the sources aren't adequate.
Traumnovelle (
talk)
23:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Valid and policy based arguments were presented, and in
assuming good faith, you may consider the state of the article and existing sources that existed at the time of nomination and also notice that the nomination has been withdrawn and one of the delete !votes had been stricken at the time of your !vote, which also does not present policy arguments.
microbiologyMarcus
petri dish·
growths
00:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- My vote is based on the presence of sources in the article combined with no apparent issues with them. Traumnovelle ( talk) 02:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- My vote is keep this article stay not deletion by -- Sunuraju ( talk) 14:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Valid and policy based arguments were presented, and in
assuming good faith, you may consider the state of the article and existing sources that existed at the time of nomination and also notice that the nomination has been withdrawn and one of the delete !votes had been stricken at the time of your !vote, which also does not present policy arguments.
microbiologyMarcus
petri dish·
growths
00:14, 16 June 2024 (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.
- 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. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 07:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Grrr (2024 film)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Grrr (2024 film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed draftify. Movie not presently notable. Coverage consists of press releases,
WP:CHURNALISM press releases, and release date coverage.
microbiologyMarcus
petri dish·
growths 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC) Withdrawn.
microbiologyMarcus
petri dish·
growths
12:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 14:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - There is nothing in this article that addresses either
general notability or
film notability. This article does not
speak for itself, and there is no mention of
significant coverage.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
15:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes there is and plenty of coverage exists....Not sure why we're here. The page was improved but nominators (and in my view, Delete !voters too) should check existing sources before voting. Inviting you to kindly reconsider your !vote. Best, -
My, oh my!
(Mushy Yank)
20:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- User:Mushy Yank - In my opinion, the burden of checking for sources is on article authors even before it is on nominators. Article authors should wait until the sources exist before moving the article into article space in the expectation that there will be reviews. A film article with no reviews is a film article that should have stayed in draft space or user space until the reviews were published. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- To explain:
Not sure why we're here
. We are here because the article author wrote an article with no Reception section. That is why we are here. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)- No comment. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes there is and plenty of coverage exists....Not sure why we're here. The page was improved but nominators (and in my view, Delete !voters too) should check existing sources before voting. Inviting you to kindly reconsider your !vote. Best, -
My, oh my!
(Mushy Yank)
20:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: Reviews in The Week, and The Hindu would be enough to keep this. And there's more coverage (including OTHER REVIEWS in South First, Tribune, Onmanorama, The News Minute, Times Now)... So non-notable, how, why? This meets GNG and NFILM. A redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2024 should have been considered anyway before nomination as ATD. So, I am very sorry but I think this may have been a bit hasty, and am inviting the nominator to kindly withdraw. The person who moved this to Main was right. Thanks. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: I also couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, aside from some churnalism or press releases based coverage, so this clearly fails GNG. Saqib ( talk) 21:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)- Courtesy @ 2pou: who draftified this. — Saqib ( talk) 21:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I also couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage
: thank you for your efforts, but just read the page then, and open the links of the 9 reviews (and there are probably more). :D))) - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)-
Mushy Yank, I recall you advising me previously that I don't need to reply to every comment. However, you also engage in doing so. I've made my point, and I don't feel the need to argue with anyone further. —
Saqib (
talk)
22:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wasn't me. I don't remember having advised you not to do so (I noted it is a routine of yours, and even said (twice, maybe) I personally didn't mind). But your !vote seems so ....pardon me, bizarre and unexplainable to me, that I thought I would give you a chance to amend it. Never mind. You didn't find any sig/in-depth coverage when NINE reviews, including some in major Indian newspapers, have been presented? Sure. OK. I must assume good faith then... -
My, oh my!
(Mushy Yank)
22:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Mushy Yank, In short. No, I don't see any coverage here that can help establish GNG. — Saqib ( talk) 22:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Wasn't me. I don't remember having advised you not to do so (I noted it is a routine of yours, and even said (twice, maybe) I personally didn't mind). But your !vote seems so ....pardon me, bizarre and unexplainable to me, that I thought I would give you a chance to amend it. Never mind. You didn't find any sig/in-depth coverage when NINE reviews, including some in major Indian newspapers, have been presented? Sure. OK. I must assume good faith then... -
My, oh my!
(Mushy Yank)
22:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
-
Mushy Yank, I recall you advising me previously that I don't need to reply to every comment. However, you also engage in doing so. I've made my point, and I don't feel the need to argue with anyone further. —
Saqib (
talk)
22:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Kerala. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Not sure why this AfD came up or if a WP:Before was done. So many reliable reviews... I would even advise a Snow Keep. DareshMohan ( talk) 02:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: Reviews in the article are more than enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt ( talk) 02:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: The film released yesterday (June 14) and has multiple reliable reviews which satisfy WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly enough coverage since its release yesterday. hinnk ( talk) 07:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- As nominator, withdrawn and keep in light of the new sources. microbiologyMarcus petri dish· growths 12:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per above passes WP:NFILM. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 21:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, those voting delete have given no proper reasoning as to why the sources aren't adequate.
Traumnovelle (
talk)
23:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
- Valid and policy based arguments were presented, and in
assuming good faith, you may consider the state of the article and existing sources that existed at the time of nomination and also notice that the nomination has been withdrawn and one of the delete !votes had been stricken at the time of your !vote, which also does not present policy arguments.
microbiologyMarcus
petri dish·
growths
00:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- My vote is based on the presence of sources in the article combined with no apparent issues with them. Traumnovelle ( talk) 02:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- My vote is keep this article stay not deletion by -- Sunuraju ( talk) 14:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
- Valid and policy based arguments were presented, and in
assuming good faith, you may consider the state of the article and existing sources that existed at the time of nomination and also notice that the nomination has been withdrawn and one of the delete !votes had been stricken at the time of your !vote, which also does not present policy arguments.
microbiologyMarcus
petri dish·
growths
00:14, 16 June 2024 (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.