- 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 keep. ( non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 01:52, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- Kallappadam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a non-notable film, with no sources given, and should therefore be deleted in my opinion. I tried speedy deletion, but they kept on being removed films aren't eligible under
A7.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
14:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. The article has been expanded substantially since I originally prod'ded it, but that expansion did not include any independent sourcing.-- Finngall talk 14:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Change to keep based on new information. Thank you. -- Finngall talk 14:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
* Delete- unsourced, non-notable,
WP:GNG. --
L235 (
t /
c /
ping in reply)
15:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep- OOPS, I guess I felt lazy and forgot to google. -- L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) 22:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. A quick Google search yields non-trivial coverage in sources like The Hindu and Gulf News. Lack of good citations in the article does not mean they don't exist. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete- unsourced, almost unintelligible, promotion - Arjayay ( talk) 21:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- STRONG Keep per easily meeting WP:NF. Gene93k is eminently correct. Come on Finngall, L235, and Arjayay The nominator (sorry Joseph) made a poor deletion rationale, should hone his WP:BEFORE, and really should understand that a topic's notability is found per sources being available, and not whether an article is sourced or not. We have enough sources speaking toward this film for the topic to meet WP:NF. IE: The Hindu, and many others. Did you guys forgot to do BEFORE yourself prior to opining? Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Request withdrawn I guess you're right.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
01:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. At least it is now
fixed up enough. I'd close it myself per
WP:IAR but we do have a few other deletes that need to revisit the situation.
Schmidt,
Michael Q.
01:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep – Notable as per meeting WP:NFSOURCES. Source examples include [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. NORTH AMERICA 1000 13:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
- 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.