Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodambakkam (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. North America1000 12:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Kodambakkam (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable at all. Sourced only to one review, which consists almost entirely of a plot summary, with a few sentences of commentary. That one review is not substantial coverage, and on its own does not come near to establishing notability. Searches for other sources produced this Wikipedia article, a download site where the film can be obtained, a "gallery" page displaying stills from the film, pages giving links to download songs from the film, etc etc, but no substantial coverage in independent sources. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Really, the one review "consists almost entirely of a plot summary, with a few sentences of commentary"? Are you sure you nominated for deletion the article you intended to? Cause the source I see in Kodambakkam (film) has only 3 sentences of plot summary, the rest is commentary. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep the nominator should keep in mind that "Tamil movie" means a movie in Tamil language, hence a review could look like: this. We are talking of a commercial movie produced and released in theatres in Tamil Nadu, an Indian state with a population bigger than Britain, France or South Korea, not to mention California. Clearly notable. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as unless the necessary local news coverage can be found, nothing suggests an currently acceptable English article for the English Wikipedia. SwisterTwister   talk  23:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You confuse me by your ignoring the two sources already offered and by what appears to be an insistence that the article be perfect when that is not what guideline tells us.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 13:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  23:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * in looking further:
 * tamil:
 * alt:
 * director:
 * star:
 * star:
 * star:
 * producer:
 * producer:
 * distributor:
 * WP:INDAFD: Kodambakkam Movie Jaganji Nandha Diya Tejashree V.S Satheesan K.Seveal AAA Productions

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * STRONG Keep per meeting WP:NF through coverage in multiple sources. I politely point out that current state is not how notability is determined. It is always best to look further before opining, and consider WP:NEXIST. This needs work, not deletion. Thanks.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 13:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the above sourcing work AusLondonder (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  23:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per MQS and Biwom. You found very good sources, meets WP:GNG., as I have said previously, do not just say "delete", as you have a tendency to vote delete on almost all articles. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. &mdash; Vensatry (Talk) 14:39, 4 May 2016 (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.