Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kalyana Rathriyil


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Kalyana Rathriyil

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NOTFILM. Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I've added a reference to the article from a reliable source, the Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema, published by the British Film Institute. Here is the movies IMBD listing, just fyi: . I'm sure Indian language books and news would also have many more references, so this should be kept to allow further development of the article in the coming years, since WMF is working on reaching out to attract more editors from India. First Light (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not questioning the film's existence but its notability. It is subject to the same guidelines as any film. We can't keep an article for "years" pending "further development". It's a 1996 film - when do you expect it to become notable? There are more likely to be reliable sources now rather than later. My Google News search came up with zilch.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I know, that's why I mentioned the Indian language sources, which are surely out there, and would take longer than a one-week AfD to shake out. I admittedly have a bias toward keeping foreign language films with fewer reliable sources, so that they can be developed over time. So the closing admin should take that bias into account. First Light (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can find some Indian reliable sources in a week. If not, there's always the possibility there won't be enough discussion, so the AfD would have to be relisted. :-) Failing that, if you found sources later, you could always recreate the article later based on changed circumstances.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Since I don't know any Indian languages, I'm unlikely to find non-English sources at any time. And online sources will be scant, since the film was made in 1966. Because it includes some notable actors: Adoor Bhasi and Prem Nazir, and the music was by Paravur Devarajan, I still say that this is extremely likely to have many print and non-English sources. Again, the closing admin can take into account the fact that I have what is likely an exaggerated and non-conforming belief in Systemic bias. First Light (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Mmm the nominator has a point but Malayalam films from the 1960s sheesh finding good sources are a problem. But looking in google news for a 1966 Malayalam film article is bizarre!!! Why would there be anything in the news on it? The director, music, and cast and even singers like S. Janaki are all notable to Malayalam cinema and I think this film meets guidelines. But sources about it are likely almost entirely in Malayalam whatever the Malayalam title is and even then are probably not accessible in google books.♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not sure if this should be kept or deleted, but I am concerned that with a Malayam language film from 1966, we are running up against Systemic bias, and FUTON bias. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. Do you have any support for your claim of bias? I certainly see no evidence of it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * There is plenty of evidence for systemic bias on Wikipedia. WP:Systemic Bias explains what that term means:
 * "The Wikipedia project suffers systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting an imbalanced coverage of a subject, thereby discriminating against the less represented demographic groups."
 * English Wikipedia describes the national demographics of its editors under "Origin of edits (04/10 - 03/11)", which shows that approximately 70% of edits come from four Western English-speaking countries. Only 3.2% come from India, which is the country we are talking about in this instance. It's hard to argue against an obvious and extreme systemic bias as demonstrated in articles just like the one we're talking about here. Keep in mind that nobody is accusing anyone of a personal bias. Also keep in mind that the English Wikipedia is the world-dominant Wikipedia, used by people from all countries. That is why you have editors from India creating an article about a 1966 Malayalam film that has an "imbalanced coverage of the subject" in English language sources. First Light (talk) 03:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither Wikipedia nor I have a problem with foreign sources to support the notability of this article. What I object to is the proposition that the threshold of notability must be lower for articles about foreign films or that we must automatically assume bias just because the article in question is about a foreign film.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Systemic bias isn't specifically about films per se, but the fact is that a 1966 Malayalam film will de facto have systemic bias, as would any other 1966 x in non-English language. It doesn't seem that you understand what systemic bias is. Can you honestly say that there is no systemic bias on Wikipedia? The fact that I (and two other editors) are saying/implying that it applies here is worth noting. With two reliable sources, this is surely borderline, which is why yet again I'll say to the closing admin: "take all this into account. In this case, you don't even have to Ignore All Rules, just use your own judgment based on what I've said (repeatedly now) about taking my comments into account." First Light (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're going in circles (both in good faith). So, I'll let you have the last (substantive) word, and we can let other editors comment and the closing admin do whatever they think is appropriate.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Per First Light. It can improve, although it should be improved in English here. Beyond495 (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2011 (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.