Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Punnaram Cholli Cholli
- Punnaram Cholli Cholli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined PROD, where editor added websites where the DVD of the current film can be purchased. The article lists no reliable sources. On my own search, I was unable to find reviews, awards, or other independent sources asserting the notability of this film. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: It’d be hard to find online reviews for this pre-internet 1985 Malayalam film. Salih (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep: Article satisfies WP:V and is not WP:HOAX. There are songs on Raaga and a few Youtube videos. These dont technically qualify as WP:RS, but atleast they show that article is not WP:HOAX. One can technically find additional Reliable Sources by looking into hard literature Veryhuman (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment We don't keep articles about films simply because because they are not hoaxes. WP:V is a necessary, but not sufficient criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. We also don't keep articles about films (or other topics) because we assume that sources exist. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, sometimes verifiability can be enough to allow a brand new article on a topic that has found its way into both the Encyclopaedia of Indian cinema and the Lexikon Film Schauspieler international to remain and have issues addressed over time and through regular editing. The more difficult a verifiable topic is to research, should not make us more willing to toss it because it will be hard work. The inclusion in those tomes might be seen as indicators that at one time the film was written of and was deemed worth including therein, perhaps for its own sake or because of the also verifiable involvement of India's preemminent stars of that era... Shankar, Rahman, Zarina Wahab, Sreenivasan, Innocent, Bharath Gopi, Nedumudi Venu, and Lizy... or because it was an early directorial effort of Priyadarshan, or because it was written by actor Sreenivasan. Sometimes such verifiable is enough to encourage that such brand new stubs remain for a while and be addressed by editors better able to search for the hardcopy sources that may have spoken about the film when it was first released. It's a problem we encounter with the unfortunate systemic bias that exists for pre-internet, non-English films, and the expectation by some that a Malayalam film from 1985 must remain in the news or be found immediately in archives of news articles from that pre-internet time. Do we delete because its time is 26 years past, or allow those better able to do so to address issues over time and through regular editing? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- But, the first source is a 524-page book, listing of all films coming out of Indian cinema since 1912-1994, and does not appear to be source reflecting an indication of notability as much as it is a compendium. The other source is a 924-book detailing bios of actors and actresses. Though this is likely to mention the film, it is not likely to provide significant coverage of the film itself. As for the fact that the film's director and actors may be notable, and that this might be an indicator of the fact that sources supporting the film's notability exist, I am in agreement. However, I see no problem with someone userifying the page until such sources are found. To say that a topic is merited a page on Wikipedia prior to concrete evidence that such sources exist doesn't sit well with me. The sources demonstrating notability need to come first, even if they are offline. Besides, as it stands, the page is essentially a content fork of the information currently at Priyadarshan#Filmography with unsourced claims like "This film was also a good earner at box office." Is this page really adding anything valuable as it is? I do not think so. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, sometimes verifiability can be enough to allow a brand new article on a topic that has found its way into both the Encyclopaedia of Indian cinema and the Lexikon Film Schauspieler international to remain and have issues addressed over time and through regular editing. The more difficult a verifiable topic is to research, should not make us more willing to toss it because it will be hard work. The inclusion in those tomes might be seen as indicators that at one time the film was written of and was deemed worth including therein, perhaps for its own sake or because of the also verifiable involvement of India's preemminent stars of that era... Shankar, Rahman, Zarina Wahab, Sreenivasan, Innocent, Bharath Gopi, Nedumudi Venu, and Lizy... or because it was an early directorial effort of Priyadarshan, or because it was written by actor Sreenivasan. Sometimes such verifiable is enough to encourage that such brand new stubs remain for a while and be addressed by editors better able to search for the hardcopy sources that may have spoken about the film when it was first released. It's a problem we encounter with the unfortunate systemic bias that exists for pre-internet, non-English films, and the expectation by some that a Malayalam film from 1985 must remain in the news or be found immediately in archives of news articles from that pre-internet time. Do we delete because its time is 26 years past, or allow those better able to do so to address issues over time and through regular editing? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment We don't keep articles about films simply because because they are not hoaxes. WP:V is a necessary, but not sufficient criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. We also don't keep articles about films (or other topics) because we assume that sources exist. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)