Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat No.4B

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. Tone 12:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flat No.4B

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

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

Non notable film with no major cast members. Fails WP:NFILM with no reviews from notable publications as well as WP:N due to the paucity of other references. Has been made by a single purpose editor whose name also indicates conflict of interest Jupitus Smart 07:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-sourced and easily notable. Needs clean up and polishing and not to be deleted. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure how this is considered well sourced. For your reference we consider only references from notable publications while evaluating notability, and a list of such publications can be found at WP:ICTFFAQ. The quality of the references already on the page are listed below

[1] has 1 small line which says the lead actor won a best debutant actor award. The award is not notable and as with a lot of awards in Kerala, it is quite evident that award was bought by the actor, with the organisers adding that many films were not considered as they were not submitted. Also WP:NOTINHERITED applies here.
[2] is 6 lines in a small press release type article from Times of India. Also to be noted here is that the banner is Kautilya Films which is also the name of the editor who created this Wikipedia article.
[3] is a listing of theatres in Thrissur and the movies that they were showing on a particular day. Unsure if this adds any value to the article apart from indicating that the movie was released in a run down theatre while the other biggies occupied the bigger theatres.
[4] is a listing of theatres in Thrissur as above
[5] is dead
[6] is a press release
[7] is just a listing of the movie
[8] is also dead
[9] is also dead

WP:NFILM requires 2 reviews from major publications. I was unable to find any review - from sources which are reliable or even from those considered unreliable. Also with 22 IMDB ratings [10] it is quite evident that the movie did not get a wide release which would have made it notable, or even worthy of reviewing by publications. Delete it should be. Jupitus Smart 16:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - first, WP:NFILM does not require reviews but rather lists the existence of film reviews as possible evidence of notability. Secondly, dead links could be retrieved using archives - it doesn't mean that sources do not exist, it requires clean up. Your claim that IMDb ratings indicate the kind of release a movie received is not based on any factual information. Also, notoability of films does not derive from how big their release was. As for the user who created the film article being named just as the production company - it still remains in the form of a speculation, which I personally do believe too but can't prove, nor does it matter as far as the film's notability is concerned anyway. Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shshshsh: Two reviews are actually required when it does not meet WP:GNG or if it does not meet any of the other requirements at WP:NFILM. Please indicate how this meets WP:GNG from the quality of references as discussed above. Also it is quite evident from the URL of the deadlinks that they are nothing more than picture galleries which also does not impart any notability - meaning finding archives also won't be very useful. I was not using the IMDB ratings as a metric of notability, but merely implying that the lack of coverage in reliable sources, which is a required metric for us, is a reason why nobody has watched this movie. I would also request you to indicate why notability is met, instead of harping that notability is met without any factual basis. You may choose to ignore the conflict of interest provided you can indicate notability is met, in which case cleanup would suffice, but in the absence of coverage in reliable sources this does not meet the requirements to remain. Jupitus Smart 14:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's agree to disagree. :) If the community decides to delete it, so be it. My entire perception of Wikipedia, especially in regard to which articles should stay and which shouldn't, is different, I guess. I always improve Indian cinema-based articles which are up for deletion, and I would do with this film, which I know nothing about, too, if I had more time. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we both are inclusionists as I noticed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umma (1960 film) and in some other discussions. I am also happy that someone is actually believing in the need for protecting Malayalam movie articles and would have been more glad if you had showed up earlier when some of the classic oldies were deleted (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gajakesariyogam among others). But this movie is not one among those which is why I have nominated this for deletion. I might also nominate the lead Riaz M. T. which is also probably made by the same syndicate. Happy editing. Jupitus Smart 01:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks reliable reviews for NFILM and no indication of meeting GNG. Considering the film is from 2014, its not unreasonable to expect a couple of reviews to show up online. However, offline sources may exist. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 04:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence in the article or in searches that this passes GNG or NFILM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:07, 24 January 2022 (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.