Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thalamura

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. It is not contested that the WP:GNG sourcing requirements are not met. The "keep" opinion that " India doesn't have a history of reviewing films" is unpersuasive because the frequency of sources is not relevant to WP:GNG (or indeed WP:V): Wikipedia has articles only on well-sourced topics, and if a topic has few sources, then it will have few articles. Sandstein 09:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thalamura

[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)

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. One review cited, but nothing else notable found in a WP:BEFORE. Previously deleted in PROD, but REFUNDED. Tagged for notability DonaldD23 talk to me 00:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: India doesn't have a history of reviewing films. I think one movie review from Gulf News is significant as the film was released in 1993 and review was published in 2000 and the other reason for which I think it is significant review because not every non notable films of India appears in Gulf News as a review because Gulf News is newspaper of Dubai and this film is from India. 𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 02:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - LordVoldemort728 said it all. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep: per LordVoldemort728. SuperSharanya (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)~~ [reply]
Delete per nom as the referencing currently available and per my WP:BEFORE neither pass WP:GNG nor WP:NFILM. One review is deficient to pass NFILM#1, which explicitly requires multiple reviews, likewise, WP:GNG's requirement of multiple sources are failed. The other references currently provided include a database entry and a trivial mention, both failing significant coverage. My search on Google, Google Books, and The Wikipedia Library found some trivial mentions that likewise fail significant coverage.

With regards to the argument that India doesn't have a history of reviewing films..., it might be an argument to ignore WP:NFILM consequently of the film being distributed in an older era and that Gulf News is newspaper of Dubai and this film is from India. This is acceptable when used sparingly to ignore NFILM/GNG. However, I dispute this characterisation as firstly, the review is published in 2000, which, according to references from the Gulf News page, was after the news organisation established a local bureau in New Delhi from 1995 with the aim of providing better local coverage (by 2000 Gulf News has also established Internet coverage). As such, I don't think it's especially significant that the film received a review from a UAE organisation given that Gulf News already had a bureau in Delhi with the aim of providing enhanced local coverage (which would likely mean reviews of local films, including this one), and that it would be insufficient to override the failures of notability guidelines. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CU note SuperSharanya above is the sock of a blocked user. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2023 (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.