Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/En Thangai


 * 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. per consensus. Several commenters mentioned that several of the stubs have reliable sources and according to an WP:AN post some of the nominated entries were never properly tagged either. No objections against more specific nomination made after careful search of sources. Mgm|(talk) 16:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

En Thangai

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

Two sentence stub on a non-notable film, part of series of auto-generated content-free stubs featuring the same actor. The original version did not even state the exact year nor provide even the slightest reference. Prod tag added, but removed after the addition of only one (1) reference (a newspaper article) and a year of release (1952, which does not even agree with the vague claim from the original, 'The film was released in the 1940s').

Wikipedia is not a directory, so an article should have some other reason than a listing of its mere existence if it's to be a 'perfectly valid stub', as the remover of the Prod tag claimed. And even if Wikipedia were to be considered some sort of alternate version of the similarly user-edited IMDB, it should have at least some minimal level of content and--especially--proof.

Also included in this nomination are some further examples of this auto-generated, content-free directory-listing spree. There are many, many more:



--CalendarWatcher (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep En Thangai per the source in the article and this one calling it a "mega hit". I fail to see the relevance of pointing out that the article creator got the release date wrong when this has now been corrected. I would urge splitting this into separate AfDs. The notability of these films is not interdependent, so we could end up with a very confusing mix of "keeps" and "deletes" for different films that will be very difficult for a closing admin to untangle. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The release date error is evidence that not only was there not the slightest assertion of notability--that is, a reason for having an article as opposed to a directory listing--but that the article creator didn't even know whether there was any when he autogenerated the list. And as all of the listed articles are similar content-free directory entries--complete with the same '[t]he film was released in the 1940s' or '[t]he film was released in the 1950s' boiler-plate--then yes, they all belong here in the same group. As for the single reference: well, 'one' is not 'multiple', as in 'multiple, non-trivial references'. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We're supposed to be discussing the notability of the subject, not punishing the article creator for making mistakes by deleting the article. I have now shown you two sources. I also note that none of the additional articles listed above has an AfD template. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Malaikkallan. Sources say that it was |+MGR)&dq=Malaikkallan+%2B(Ramachandran+|+MGR)&num=100&client=firefox-a&pgis=1 an astounding success and was the first Tamil film to win a President's Silver Award. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect Panakkaari to M. G. Ramachandran filmography unless further sources are found. I can't find any indication that sources are available that provide any more information than is in the filmography article, but I don't read Tamil. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect Andhaman Kaidhi to M. G. Ramachandran filmography unless further sources are found. I can't find any indication that sources are available that provide any more information than is in the filmography article, but I don't read Tamil. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Sarvadhigari. Notable enough to be written about in The Hindu 57 years after its release. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect Marudhanaattu Ilavarasi to M. G. Ramachandran filmography unless further sources are found. I can't find any indication that sources are available that provide any more information than is in the filmography article, but I don't read Tamil. Also it's very difficult to search for sources in the Latin alphabet because so many different transliterations are possible: two words or three, "dh" or "th", single or double "a", single or double "t" - those combinations already make 16 and there could be more. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect Rathnakumar to M. G. Ramachandran filmography unless further sources are found. I can't find any indication that sources are available that provide any more information than is in the filmography article, but I don't read Tamil. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Raja Mukthi. Another one that's notable enough to be the subject of an article in a major newspaper 60 years after its release. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Alibabavum Narpadhu Thirudargalum. Notable as the first Tamil colour film. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect Baghdadh Thirudan to M. G. Ramachandran filmography unless further sources are found. I can't find any indication that sources are available that provide any more information than is in the filmography article, but I don't read Tamil. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per a whole slew of "futher sources". Article needs expansion, not deletion. Will now go to each article in turn and do the same simple search for sources.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: With respects to the nom, each of the stubs on his list have multiple sources available for expansion per the most cursory of google searches. The articles should be tagged for expansion and not deletion as per WP:ATD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Procedural close. It's clear that the use of batch-nomination in this case isn't working, as comments above suggest at least some of the films have independent notability, if not all of them. Recommend closing and allowing stated efforts to improve sourcing, etc. to be conducted, then if it's felt that some of these films are still not notable enough, then they can be renominated individually. 23skidoo (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Procedural close. As well as 23skidoo's point I see that there are still no AfD templates in any of the articles except for En Thangai, so the AfD is invalid for those articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with procedural close, per 23skidoo and Phil Bridger. I have myself begun sourcing some of the articles. The information is out there... just takes a bit of searching. Granted, the original author put up some very barren articles, but their being poorly written is no reason to delete if the articles can be improved.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Procedural close. Stop the pain, please make it stop. -- Banj e  b oi   18:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm also concerned that we would be deleting articles that never had an AfD template on them so interested parties even knew that someone was attempting to delete them. -- Banj e  b oi   18:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Close and void; renominate a bit less indiscriminately and make sure that all nominated articles are tagged. Stifle (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2008 (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.