Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhale Mogudu Bhale Pellam


 * 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) -  The   Magnificentist  07:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Bhale Mogudu Bhale Pellam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Foreign language film of questionable notability (WP:NFILM). When this film was accepted, it was noted that references demonstrating notability of this film. Creator of this page removed the notability concern banner without fixing the problem. Page was prodded citing Foreign film of questionable notability to English language wikipedia unsupported by current references. Was deprodded citing deprod- foreign films are encouraged, has refs. Article consists of a plot synopsis and cast list. References either assert that it the film exists or database listing of the cast/crew. Neither of these categories provide the necessary support for this film. There's no reason why there can't be a Telugu language version of the page (as presumably there's reviews for it), however in English wikipedia we need some references that back up the assertions and raise this beyond a IMDB level of content. Hasteur (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Telugu language reviews are acceptable for WP:GNG, here are 2 English reviews here at 123telegu.com and here at an archive of cinegoer.com but not sure if they are reliable sources as the RS Noticeboard hasn't mentioned them. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Cinegoer is a deadlink, so we discard that in consideration for RS (though it could have been a marginal as a deadlink when we had other RS attesting to the content of the dead link). As to 123telugu, it does not appear to be a professional site (their contact email is 123telugu@live.com), nor does it read like a critical coverage, but a hobyist/blogger giving their viewpoint. Reviewer is not listed so there could be a conflict of interest in the writing (either for or against the movie), and the review itself indicates that it's a disapointment of a movie.  For these reasons, I don't think the notability of the film is given, and in light of the proffered "RS" I'm inclined to think this will never (as we're already 5 years past the film's release) exceed the threshold of notability for inclusion in the English wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per meeting WP:NF through coverage in such as Filmibeat, The Hindu (2), Times of India, and The Hindu (1). Sorry, just takes looking through using WP:BEFORE, and deadlinks found archived can be considered under WP:NTEMP. Needs work, not deletion.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist 1 1 1 22:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Nom should have exercised due diligence; this is also a possible case of WP:BIAS -- often foreign-lang films don't get enuf recognition film when there is a wealth of Indian sources (or any other foreign sources for that matter) Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, sources covering a non-western film NEVER have to be "western sources" only. WP:COMMONSENSE anyone?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 18:54, 25 June 2017 (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.