Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalippu (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 no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Kalippu

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Kalippu
• Articles for deletion/Kalippu (2nd nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Kalippu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

There is not enough sources. All I could find was a Mathrubhumi article [1] and a Times of India review [2]. Other sources (Filmibeat, Amazon) are not notable. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was delete. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Previous discussions: 2018-06 ✗ delete

Related discussions: 2018-05 Kalipp ✗ delete

Logs: 2020-02 ✍️ create, 2018-07 ✗ G4, 2018-06 ✗ deleted, 2018-05 ↻ restored, 2015-10 ✗ PROD

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• Weak keep as it does have one full review in a national newspaper imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delete Atlantic306 is correct that it has a review in a national paper (Times of India) but that is a rather short one and there is no sign in the sources given it really made much of an impact. This has been now created at least three times and deleted twice but at least it appears to have been released. That history and the one reliable source review given create the impression of a vanity project, not a serious independent film. While such projects can be notable, I really don't see evidence this meets any of the WP:NFILM criteria or GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once more, with feeling.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep - reviews provide notability. Balle010 (talk) 05:59, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a tautology, not an argument for keeping. Which reviews? How many are in WP:RS? Do they fulfill the requirements of any notability criterion? Do they demonstrate that The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Balle010: common fire provides heat. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• delete subject fails WP:NFILM, also per Eggishorn. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2020 (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.