Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanmashi

Kanmashi

[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!

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

(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)

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

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

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

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Delete Per nom. Requires more sources. Jenyire2 (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)