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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
microbiologyMarcuspetri dish·
growths00:14, 16 June 2024 (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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
microbiologyMarcuspetri dish·
growths00:14, 16 June 2024 (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.