Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhan Chirikkunnu


 * 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The result was Keep: Nomination withdrawn. (WP:Non-admin closure). §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 11:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Buddhan Chirikkunnu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article Buddhan Chirikkunnu is about a up-coming movie which is not showing any significant it maybe possible in future this article can be useful on Wikipedia.  WOW  Indian   Talk 08:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator.  WOW  ॐIndian   Talk 14:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 12.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 09:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * KeepI don't know why User:WOWIndian has nominated it for deletion. The reason he stated above is a big foolishness! How does an Upcoming film's significance vanishes? Can you clearly state which is the policy this article is violating? I've given all reliable references from the Newspapers such as The Hindu, The New Indian Express and Times of India.--  Jos   eph   09:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete : Fails WP:NF. This article is talking about a movie which is not even released. News like movie, song and politics have high trends somehow it is a part of media. It is requested that please read the third section of Notability (films).  WOW  Indian   Talk 09:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've struck the duplicate delete !vote above (your nomination is taken as a delete !vote). However, feel free to comment all you'd like. NorthAmerica1000 09:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * From Notability (films), "For the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline is sufficient to follow.". The guidelines (i) significant coverage in (ii) reliable (iii) secondary sources (iv) independent of the subject. It being significant is a weak point here, it would seem. What purpose does it serve? It serves the purpose of gathering enough redundancy for writing a small article, whose each statement would be verifiable; but in my view, existing coverage sufficiently verbose for starting a small article. Gryllida (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I find that two sources, Indian Express and The Hindu, are reliable, and are enough to be able to give a verbose, accurate, verifiable account of the article subject. I would oppose deletion here, as I see notability secondary; it's just a way to say "I don't think we can trust your sources enough to write accurate verifiable information about your article subject"; this time, I think I can. Gryllida (talk) 09:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 10:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 10:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Sourcing in English is sparse, but there's enough out there to scrape past WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲 &zwj; 水  11:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep i dont understand why is it even nominated for deletion Irvin calicut (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It was nominated for deletion since no references were found, I request you to use the tool provided above to find the sources and let me know if you see any reference about this article.  WOW  Indian   Talk 12:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * With respect, as I mention below - at the time you nominated this, there were already 3 reliable sources. I'm not sure why you say there were no references found?  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - with respect to the nominator, at the time of his nomination of this article, there were 3 reliable sources provided (Times of India, The Hindu, The New Indian Express). For me, this shows enough interest in this film from reliable sources to meet the GNG.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 12:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: The references you are naming Phantomsteve, the Times of Indian, The Hindu and Indian Express have very less or minor information about the topic and the contents of the article. In the case of times of India it is taking about Playback singer G Venugopal turns music director and in the case of indian express it is taking about A Comedian's Tribute to Chaplin.  WOW  Indian   Talk 13:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Granted, the Times of India is a minor mention, but The Hindu has 5 paragraphs, while The Indian Express has 2 paragraphs about this film. This clearly meets the General Notability Guidelines. I understand the idea behind your nomination - most new, not-yet-released films do not generally meet notability - they generally have a sentence or two written about them, not enough to establish notability. In this case, however, there is enough interest from reliable sources to indicate that it meets the basic level of notability.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 13:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm afraid to ask why Mr.WOWIndian is showing much willingness to delete this article? I wrote this article based on info I got from Newspapers. And I've given all reliable references I've got there. Also, since I'm a Malayali‎ I know more about this film. Because I've read about this film from Deepika_(newspaper)‎ and other Malayalam-language Newspapers.-- Jos   eph   14:19, 13 March 2014 (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.