Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manorathangal

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 no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manorathangal

[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)

References are brief mentions, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. Draftified previously but disputed as well as notability tag disputed. Would suggest a redirect to ZEE5. CNMall41 (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a landmark project in Indian cinema. It's bizarre that someone finds it irrelevant. Would you suggest that The Irishman produced by Netflix should simply redirect to Netflix? Filmy World (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many reliable citations are added there is no need of deletion of merging Zyzwvw (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: bylined articles in Variety, The Hindu and Onmanorama, for example, seem to show this is notable. A redirect is indeed warranted anyway, so very opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Put it back to draft and saltify the title, no more moving to-and-forth. Let an administrator review it next time. Gan Favourite (talk) 06:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? If this is notable, why draftify and block creation, on top of that, if we can agree it's notable here? no more moving to-and-forth? I agree: leave it in the Main. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because nobody has referenced specific notability-establishing sources in this AfD. Sandstein 17:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank above cited three bylined articles that are linked in the article. I link to them in my !vote below. This is not a valid "delete" rationale. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Creator is now blocked at SPI--CNMall41 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regardless of the creator's block status, the production of this film anthology passes WP:GNG and thus WP:NFILM's criteria for upcoming films. There is reliable-source WP:SIGCOV in Variety and The Hindu, both of which are listed as reliable at WP:RSP. I can't evaluate all the non-English sources but Variety and The Hindu provide a baseline pass of WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu piece is a mention. Nothing about the film other than it exists. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be misreading the article. The entire article is about the origins and production of the nine-film anthology that is the subject of this AfD. It's extensive enough that if I were to quote every passage about the anthology it constitute a copyvio. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 7 August 2024 (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.