Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ee Parakkum Thalika


 * 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. Aside from the nominator, the only argument for deletion addresses the film's IMDB rating. Not a valid inclusion criterion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ee Parakkum Thalika

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod; sources have been added to the article, but they only mention the film by name and offer no substantial coverage, only an unsubstantiated claim that this film was a "hit". No evidence that this film meets WP:NF. PC78 (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Comment. How is it unsubstantiated claim when these sources mention the film as hit or super hit movie? Salih ( talk ) 15:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  —PC78 (talk) 11:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —  Salih  ( talk ) 12:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes the film a "hit" or a "big hit" or a "super hit"? Were they successful at the box office? Did they win any awards? I don't know because the sources don't elaborate, nor do they say anything of substance about this particular film - they only mention it in passing. Anyone can say a film was a hit, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. PC78 (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In India, a film is considered hit when it is successful at the box office. It is not anyone telling the movie was a hit; it is written as such in the reliable sources. Salih  ( talk ) 17:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks notability, only 17 votes on IMDB (and given 3.9/10). The article is just completely unnecessary. Parkerparked (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With respects, if anyone were to try using IMDB as a source of notability, they would be soundly advised that Wikipedia does not consider IMDB reliable. The same for using IMDB to show non-notability. It just is not reliable for such... specially when IMDB is generally a database for Western films. Their informations for Indian films is sketchy at best. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Exactly Michael, especially for the lesser industries like Malayalam films. Imdb is not an indicator of notability anyway. The Hindu is a more reliable source than imdb.  Dr. Blofeld       White cat 16:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Good faith allows that I do not have to have the box office figures to accept when reliable sources repeatedly call the film a "hit" or a blockbuster". MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article passes WP:RS standards. Whether the film was seen by millions or only by the projectionist is not relevant to the argument. Furthermore, IMDb is currently not recognized as a reliable source by Wikipedia. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry folks, but the mere mention of this film in a few reliable sources does not amount to notability. What is needed, what is required by WP:N and WP:NF, is "significant coverage", and there does not appear to be any. PC78 (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And sorry right back. I do not read Malayalam... nor do I read Tamil and Telugu, as the film has completed versions in those languages as well. But it continues to be called a hit of Thaha (needs an article), one if India's more notable directors... in English versions of Indian sources such as The Hindu, Sreen Weekly, One India. this  underscores the Anglo-centricism of en.Wikipedia.  With the sources that continue to praise it in passing as a major comedy hit for India's more notable directors, I can accept on good faith that the sources en.Wikipedia requires do exist.  However, I cannot read them, nor do I have the language skills to do a proper search. Does that then make the film non-notable because I do not read Malayalam or Tamil or Telugu, or because I've never heard of it or the director?  WP:UNKNOWNHERE suggests "Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population", and WP:CSB urges a wider view and acceptance that even if something is not (immediately) notable to en.Wikipedia, that temporary lack should not count as a stike against inclusion. I know... you're not saying that. You're saying you believe that current sourcing does not meet WP:RS for notability. However, guideline does grant that if an common sense assumption can be made that something is notable (from all the praising mentions), even if elsewhere, then that is enough to allow a keep as a continued search for sources is made. WP:V has been met and (eventual) WP:RS should be do-able, since we (or at least I) have reasonable and common sense assumption of notability. An article in The Hindu from September 2006 indicates that the film was still being screened 5 years after its initial release... which seems to tickle at WP:NF  The film itself has been made in Tamil... and in Tleugu with a title of Aaduthu-Paaduthu. And under Telugu title, there is a touch more less-than-trivial sourcing.  I'm still looking, but a letter-to-the-editor in Gulf Times (next to last on page) indicates Gulf News gave it a review the reader did not like.  So... I belive we have a common sense expectation that sources exist.  Keep it, tag it for input from Wikiproject India Cinema, and let's all keep digging as well. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "One if India's more notable directors"? That seems to be overstretching things a little. I'm still not seeing a substantial claim of notability here. A few sources call it a "hit" and... that's pretty much it. It's not enough to justify an article, and it's well below the threshold of any notability guidelines. You might be able to make a "common sense assumption" here but I need more, and more importantly I think our guidelines do as well. PC78 (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If The Times and The New York Times had described the film as a "big hit" and a "super hit" in a way that assumes that the reader would be familiar with it wouldn't you accept that as as a strong indication of notability? I see that you claim to be "straight but not narrow". I think you are being very narrow (albeit in a different way from the meaning intended by your userbox) in your argument here. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't accept it as a strong indication of notability, because it isn't one. I would expect any article to be supported by sources of greater substance, as per notability guidelines. I don't think that's being narrow at all. PC78 (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - needs tidying but notability is more than adequately sourced, particularly for an Indian film of this era, when the Interweb was just taking off worldwide. pablo hablo. 19:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC) note - comment edited following article editing by Tinu Cherian  pablo hablo. 07:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The film is one of most commerically boxoffice hit malayalam films in the early 2000s. I have tried to improve the article as of now. Please note that India's most read newspapers like The Hindu,The Indian Express refer to this film as a big hit. I have watched this movie over 10 times. Also to noted that the success of this film lead to the remake of 3 other Indian languages. Clearly it is a mainstream notable film of India. Even created article stub in ml.wiki --  Tinu  Cherian  - 18:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tinucherian's improvements of the article. Salih  ( talk ) 05:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is one of the most successful film in Malayalam Film Industry. --Rameshng (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per  Tinu  Cherian 's improvement of the article. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is well known Malayalam Film. The reputed indian newspapers confirm that. Shyamsunder (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2009 (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.