Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanmashi: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 00:08, 25 January 2021

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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kanmashi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE Kolma8 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's one reliable review: https://www.sify.com/movies/kanmashi-review-malayalam-pclurGbabeidf.html Kailash29792 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With all due respect, I am not sure how this 290 word review by Moviebuzz qualify to pass WP:NFILM and WP:GNG? Most of the "review" is a summary of the plot. Kolma8 (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

sify is a reliable national source, the review has independent criticism and 290 words is significant content, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I accept that there is not enough reliable sources. But the film was a major theatrical release back then and had coverage in newspapers. Its hard to find the sources considering the date of release. Regards Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 05:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a flawed argument to say that we know there is no reliable sources to prove film's notability, but let's keep it anyway. Kolma8 (talk) 08:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. @Kashmorwiki: Creating articles from database entries, to include IMDb that is not a reliable source, just proves existence not advancing notability. The result is a listing of movies to only fulfill the creation of blue links from those lists that land squarely in the middle of What Wikipedia is not (NOTGUIDE and INDISCRIMINATE) often resulting in only a "dictionary entry" with a cast listing and/or unsourced plot. The concept of Wikipedia:Verifiability, according to our sourcing policies and guidelines, is to provide evidence of notability when this is challenged. The fact that a subject may have had coverage in newspapers (if substantial coverage and not just a movie guide listing) would be a valid argument (sources out there somewhere but not currently accessible or easily found) except that merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. It should be considered that when an article contains multiple names of living people it becomes WP:BLP related subjecting it to more stringent sourcing requirements. I can't even suggest a merge or redirect (ATD) to V. M. Vinu (the article is listed there) because that BLP only has one source (of course IMDb in the "External links"), has been tagged since 2012, and it has to be considered that When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. Otr500 (talk)
Note: There needs to be some rationale to keep or find a no consensus (even if the one single source shown above is reliable giving more than a plot summary) to prevent deletion according to our deletion policy #6, #7, or #8. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no claims in the article that it passes WP:NFILM there are no references to support it meeting WP:NFOE My search does not find anything. Votes to keep do not provide arguments that meet any hurdles in WP:NFOE Jeepday (talk) 12:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Requires more sources. Jenyire2 (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2021 (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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
-===[[:Kanmashi]]===
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.''
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|F}}
+<!--Template:Afd top
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result was '''delete'''. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 00:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
+===[[:Kanmashi]]===
 <noinclude>{{AFD help}}</noinclude>
-:{{la|Kanmashi}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanmashi|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 10#{{anchorencode:Kanmashi}}|View log]]</noinclude>)
+:{{la|Kanmashi}} – (<includeonly>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanmashi|View AfD]]</includeonly><noinclude>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 January 17#{{anchorencode:Kanmashi}}|View log]]</noinclude>)
 :({{Find sources AFD|title=Kanmashi}})
 Fails [[WP:NFILM]] and [[WP:GNG]]. Nothing notable on a [[WP:BEFORE]] [[User:Kolma8|Kolma8]] ([[User talk:Kolma8|talk]]) 18:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@@ Line 10: / Line 15: @@
 * '''Keep''': There's one reliable review: https://www.sify.com/movies/kanmashi-review-malayalam-pclurGbabeidf.html <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">[[User:Kailash29792|<b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b>]] [[User talk:Kailash29792|<span style="color: black;">(talk)</span>]] </span> 18:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC) <!--VCB Kailash29792-->
 :*'''Comment''': With all due respect, I am not sure how this 290 word review by Moviebuzz qualify to pass [[WP:NFILM]] and [[WP:GNG]]? Most of the "review" is a summary of the plot. [[User:Kolma8|Kolma8]] ([[User talk:Kolma8|talk]]) 18:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
+<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|[[Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions|Relisted]] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />
+<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:Jack Frost|Jack Frost]] ([[User talk:Jack Frost|talk]]) 22:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --></div>
+:: sify is a reliable national source, the review has independent criticism and 290 words is significant content, [[User:Atlantic306|Atlantic306]] ([[User talk:Atlantic306|talk]]) 00:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''':  I accept that there is not enough reliable sources. But the film was a major theatrical release back then and had coverage in newspapers. Its hard to find the sources considering the date of release. Regards [[User:Kashmorwiki|Kichu]]🐘 <sup>[[User talk:Kashmorwiki|<i style="color:blue">Discuss</i>]]</sup> 05:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
+:*I think it is a flawed argument to say that we know there is no reliable sources to prove film's notability, but let's keep it anyway. [[User:Kolma8|Kolma8]] ([[User talk:Kolma8|talk]]) 08:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' per Nom. {{re|Kashmorwiki}}  Creating articles from database entries, to include IMDb that is not a reliable source, just proves existence not advancing notability. The result is a listing of movies to only fulfill the creation of blue links from those lists that land squarely in the middle of [[WP:What Wikipedia is not|What Wikipedia is not]] ([[WP:NOTGUIDE|NOTGUIDE]] and [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE|INDISCRIMINATE]]) often resulting in only a [[WP:NOTDICTIONARY|"dictionary entry"]] with a cast listing and/or unsourced plot. The concept of [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]], according to our sourcing policies and guidelines, is to provide evidence of notability when this is [[WP:CHALLENGE|challenged]]. The fact that a subject may have had coverage in newspapers (if substantial coverage and not just a movie guide listing) would be a valid argument (sources out there somewhere but not currently accessible or easily found) except that [[WP:NEXIST|{{tq|merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.}}]] It should be considered that when an article contains multiple names of living people it becomes [[WP:BLP]] related subjecting it to more stringent sourcing requirements. I can't even suggest a merge or redirect ([[WP:ATD|ATD]]) to [[V. M. Vinu]] (the article is listed there) because that [[WP:BLPSOURCE|BLP only has one source]] (of course IMDb in the "External links"), has been tagged since 2012, and it has to be considered that {{tq|When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.}}  [[User:Otr500|Otr500]] ([[User talk:Otr500|talk]])
+*'''Note''': There needs to be some rationale to keep or find a no consensus (even if the one single source shown above is reliable giving more than a plot summary) to prevent deletion according to our [[WP:DEL-REASON|deletion policy]] #6, #7, or #8.  -- [[User:Otr500|Otr500]] ([[User talk:Otr500|talk]]) 12:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' There are no claims in the article that it passes [[WP:NFILM]] there are no references to support it meeting [[WP:NFOE]] My search does not find anything.  Votes to keep do not provide arguments that meet any hurdles in [[WP:NFOE]] [[User:Jeepday|Jeepday]] <small>([[User talk:Jeepday|talk]])</small> 12:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' Per nom. Requires more sources. [[User:Jenyire2|Jenyire2]] ([[User talk:Jenyire2|talk]]) 18:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
+{{clear}}
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>