Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken Curry Law

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. ✗plicit 01:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Curry Law[edit]

[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)

A niche Indian film that doesn't seem to have enjoyed much popularity, it's also hard to find signed reviews of this film (the only one I've come across is from Times of India). Maybe a better expert on Indian cinema will correct me, but in my opinion the film doesn't meet notability treshold. Marcelus (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Marcelus (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found two more reviews: https://urbanasian.com/reviews/chicken-curry-law-review-good-concept-but-poor-execution/ and https://www.mumbailive.com/amp/en/bollywood/movie-review-chicken-curry-law-with-makrand-deshpande-and-ashutosh-rana-38372 Kailash29792 (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, this thread stems from the recent controversy over an actress in one of the lead roles who exaggerated her accomplishments? The article should stand though. This is simply one of many Indian movies that have floped and received negative reviews. However, it featured a fairly well-known actor in an important role, and people with established track records were involved in preparing the soundtrack. It's normal practice for these types of movies to have their articles in Wikipedia, not because of the activities of an actress trying to artificially increase her popularity. 31.61.160.173 (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: with additions, it seems notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has coverage in strong RS such as The Times of India, and Indian Express (itself a WP:RS/P). Decently written so merits keeping. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the RS WP:NFSOURCES Bruxton (talk) 00:07, 8 June 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.