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)
- They were offered as the relibale sopurces you sought, but not as SIGCOV... which a delightful tool by which to measure if something might be worthy of note, but not a mandate nor the only tool we might use to determine if something, even a 26-year-old non-English film from a non-English country, might be somehow valuable to those interested in Cinema of India in general and Malayalam films in particular. The essay WP:OEN deals with this concept. Not being Malayalam nor having access to whatever hardcopy Malayalam sources may be available offline that might address this film, I think removing it from mainspace through a userfication back to its author might bear fruit. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:15, 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)
- Delete as apparently failing the notability guidelines. Michael Q. Schmidt makes a good argument, but the onus is on the creator of the article to assert significance, whether it takes research into obscure hard-copy sources which might―or might not―exist, or 5 seconds on Google. We should not assume something is notable unless it has been demonstrated to be. If that means systemic bias, so be it. Quite frankly I don't understand the need to tackle something which is a natural consequence of significant cultural differences. Best regards, :) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Recognizing the existing and ongoing problem, the WP:CSB project is set specifically to try "tackling" those issues which are "a natural consequence of significant cultural differences". As a comprehensive encyclopdia, Wikipedia stives to include even those topics that may be of no interest to Amercan editors. The involvement of many Indian notables is a reasonable indicator that somewhere in India some media source has likly written about this film. We should not pat ourselves proudly on the back because we rely so heavily on "5 seconds on Google" internet searches, and remember that long before there was Wikipedia, folks actually did research in libraries with books or through the perusal of actual hardcopy magazines and newspapers... and even Wikipedia accepts that not all suitable sources exist online, specially for older films. Ahh... I remember those days back in high school and college when computers were big clunky machines run by IBM to compute business profits or by NASA to compute orbital trajectories. I do agree that the onus is on the author to source what he created. And since I personally do not have access to hardcopy Malayalam sources, I would be fine with userfying this new article back to the author at User:Rajeshbieee/Punnaram Cholli Cholli to see what he can do if given a little more than the 7 days AFD generally allows. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
- Userfy Return the article back to its creator and away from the ticking clock of AFD so that he might address the nominator's concerns. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)