Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuliscene

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. No prejudice against an appropriate redirect. czar 09:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuliscene

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

Non notable film. PROD was removed but still no evidence of any notability. Only its star seems to have the vaguest hint of notability, the film has none at all. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable despite some very limited press coverage. That coverage is enough to reference it as a list item in RJ Mathukutty#Filmography but not enough to justify an article for the film. I'd be neutral on redirecting this title back there. I don't see a need but it would be harmless. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody loves this AfD. Those who would protect the article keep removing the AfD header and it seems that almost nobody else has any interest in it. Let's see if we can do something about that... --DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've protected the page because people have repeatedly removed the AfD tags. That said, I can't really find anything substantial about this movie. It's mentioned offhand here and there, but there's very little out there in places Wikipedia would consider reliable. The most in-depth coverage was in this article, where the video was mentioned as being popular on YouTube - and being popular on YouTube counts for little on Wikipedia. (WP:ITSPOPULAR) If it was that easy to gain notability on Wikipedia that way, we'd have a lot more articles about the various LP-ers out there. Other than that, everything is just offhand WP:TRIVIAL coverage. There were two other sources on the page, but I'm not sure that either is particularly reliable. This source is very brief and I can't seem to find anything about the site's editorial process. Given that the article has some grammatical errors, this makes it questionable enough to where it wouldn't be considered a RS on here even if it was more in-depth. Kerala9 is better, however I'm concerned that this might be based on a press release. It's questionable at best, however even if we decide that this is usable (I'm on the fence with this one) this paired with the Deccan Chronicle source just wouldn't be enough to assert notability. If foreign language sourcing can be provided then that would be great, however this looks like it was one of those viral videos that became popular enough to gain a few nods in the media but not popular enough to really gain substantial coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 23 July 2016 (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.