Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karuvelam Pookkal (film)


 * 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) — Theo polisme  15:46, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Karuvelam Pookkal (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think it fails Notability (films). Mr T (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 16:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  18:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers,  Riley   Huntley  18:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Poomani. His work on the movie seems to have won him a national award, although I don't see anything that necessarily proves this. There's definitely two huge barriers here: a language barrier and a time barrier. This movie was made pre-Internet and any reviews or other coverage of this film probably hasn't been uploaded to the Internet. I say that for the time being we redirect to Poomani's page and userfy a copy of the film to the original editor's userspace so they can work on it until it passes WP:NFILM. (In other words, until they find enough sources to pass it, which might take more time than this AfD has.) There's one review on the author's page by The Hindu, so that's a start in the right direction. I know that there are issues with the reliability of the Hindu at times, but a review by them should be good in this case.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What may I kindly ask are the reliability issues you see with the Hindu? It is one of the most respected newspapers in India. Just curious? Arunram (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not me personally, I've seen people mention in various AfDs that the Hindu can sometimes stretch the truth with some of their stories. I've never had any issue with the paper, but any time it's used as a source in an AfD where they're the predominant sources for notability, that usually comes up as an issue.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep this article. This article is about one of the Tamil film produced by Doordarshan, a government agency in India, which also won considerable awards.-- Dineshkumar Ponnusamy (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with Dineshkumar Ponnusamy. Sufficient coverage exists for this 1996 film that can be evidently seen from sources like 1, 2, 3. Secret of success  ·  talk  12:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep A full-length film that won a state award and apparently an international award, produced by National Film Development Corporation, and involved notable individuals. Easily meets notability criteria. As the nominator has told, there is perhaps a lack of easily retrievable sources in the web, as the film was made in the pre-Internet era. This once again goes on to show systemic bias. We have problem establishing notability of this film, while albums of third grade bands pass notability just because of the coverage in the Internet. --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Film was in an era that did not have adequate online penetration in India. Film was different in that it brought mainstream cinema focus on a very serious social issue of Child labour in India in the match industry. There is a state award for the movie. The article perhaps needs further improvement.  Arunram (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2012 (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.