Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parassala Pachan Payyannur Paramu

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. Notability needs to be established via reliable sources. Assuming that sources should exist does not show notability. Aoidh (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parassala Pachan Payyannur Paramu[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)

Originally PROD'd with "Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Nothing notable on a WP:BEFORE". PROD contested with a single additional source. Still seems to fail NFILM and GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India, and Kerala. UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have a significant review in English so I think that we should be assuming that sufficient additional coverage exists in the Malayalam language unless someone can demonstrate that isn't the case. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there exists a review from a reliable source 23 years after it was released indicating it would surely have received press and reviews when it was released. It is extremely hard to source reviews for old Malayalam movies that were made before internet became common in the country, and considering the star cast it would have received more than 2 reviews had it released now. Jupitus Smart 13:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article from 2014-2021, and no sources could be found in that time or until now. WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST but it should not be up to someone to show that sources do not exist! As I mentioned at the RfU before it was restored, the only significant source we have, the review, could have been more than a basic plot narration. Delete if this is the best we can do with this article. Jay 💬 17:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is for those seeking to retain content to provide verification/sources; assuming they exist isn't what we do here. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 22 May 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.