Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makkal Mahatmyam


 * 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, though referencing does need work (non-admin closure)  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 19:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Makkal Mahatmyam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has one source, which is an online store. I searched for some reviews or discussion of the film by journalists and didn't find any. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep This movie was released in 1992 when movie reviews were not done or available for Malayalam movies. May be we can remove the current reference link to "Maebag" website and can add IMDB link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athachil (talk • contribs) 08:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * IMDb is not a reliable, independent source. There's already an IMDb link in the external links section, which is where is should be.  I found another movie article, Sargam (1992 film), which also lacked reliable sources, but I was able to find and add some, so there is information about better known 1992 films. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well... WP:INDAFD tells us that pre-2000s Indian films are difficult to source because A) Google News does not crawl and index Indian newspaper articles properly and B) worse, most of Indian Newspaper archives do not even store content for before 2000 or so.
 * Do these issues make all pre-2000 Indian films somehow automatically non-notable? No.
 * Does it create work for modern Wikipedians? Yes.
 * Is needing work a reason to delete? No.
 * searches using WP:INDAFD:Makkal Mahatmyam Makkal Maahathmiam
 * alt spelling:
 * alt spelling:
 * It's true that a lack of on-line references or a lack of English references are not a reasons to delete. However, "article needs work" can be used as a rationale to keep any unsourced article.  How will we know which ones are notable?  How will we know that the information is accurate? WP:UNSOURCED states "the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". At least a few minimum references should be found first, and then the article created.  For example, when I made the article Toronto Light Opera Association, I didn't find any reviews on line.  So, before creating the article I traveled to a city where there was a library with microfilm of the "Evening Telegram" newspaper (not indexed), and I found reviews and copied down the information. How long should an article remain unsourced? (Having said that, I concede that in this case the editors below are making an effort to find evidence of notability and may succeed where I failed.) &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good for you that you chose to travel and find microfilm copies of what was not available to you online. As confirmed by a few reliable sources confirming its commercial re-airing decades later, my having a reasonable expectation that a 23 year old Malayalam film was written of in Malayalam sourcess does not also mean I am expected to learn Malayalam and then travel to India and then find hardcopy or microfilm sources for Indian newspapers not available online. I am not Indiana Jones (chuckle).  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 16:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course not, ; sorry if I seemed to be implying that. My thinking was that this film would be of most interest to those who already speak the language and live in the area where it would likely be screened or broadcast, and that someone there might visit a local library for hardcopy. My point was more that an editor should look for at least some evidence that a topic is notable first, before choosing to create an article about it, leaving other editors who may be far away such as yourself to find the sources.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That someone created a poor article in March of 2011 is sad, and his being blocked for not understanding copyright policy is even sadder... as he is now not around to defend his efforts nor learn to improve his edits. But WP:NEGLECT or being a WP:STUB are not deletion rationals, and I already suggested on October 16 that we should encourage assistance from Malayalam-reading editors.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and allow this suitable stub to remain and be addressed by Malayalam-reading Wikipedians who may have access to hard-copy Malayalam language sources not available online. Verifiable commercial release more than 5 years after original release is an historic notability indicator under WP:NF#Other evidence of notability #2... KeralaTV confirms this 1992 film had commercial airing June 22, 2011 at 9:00 AM (19 years after original release) and The Hindu tells us it re-aired commercially November 3 2013 on Asianet Plus at 10:00 AM... (22 years after original release).  We can encourage experts in that language to assist.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you've taken the time to look this up, if the article is kept, maybe some mention of continued broadcast should be added to the article or at least to the talk page. The article has been here for several years already, though.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sources I found showing it meeting WP:NF#Other evidence of notability #2 should be added through regular editing. Sad that it has sat unattended, but WP:NEGLECT is not a deletion rationale.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 16:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Added 2 more references to the movie.Vaidyasr (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * These appear to be databases like IMDb, which can be edited by anyone. Am I wrong about that? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Edited by anyone? No. That would be Wikipedia. And even if IMDB uses some "user-submitted" information, users cannot edit that database. IMDB relies on its own editorial staff to vet submissions and add or not depending upon the results of their vetting processes. Those other sources might be investigated before simply declaring them the same as actual user-edited sites such as Wikipedia or Facebook. Meeting WP:NF#Other evidence of notability #2, the actual reliable sources I linked above should be added to source its latest airings, yes.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 16:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, Its a notable movie from Malayalam movie industry, India. Another sources are added where 1) Obituary of an actor who acted in the movie Makkal Mahathmyam from Mathrubhumi news portal, 2) clearly mentions the broadcast of movie on TV channel Asianet Movies. Both are reliable sources which indicates the notability of movie. It is also in the List of Malayalam films of 1992.Jai98 (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, mentions found thus far are all trivial and do not address the subject in detail. While I'm sympathetic to those trying to find sources (and I'd have no objections to this text being placed in the "Draft" namespace while substantial sources are located), at the moment it's not verifiable in reliable sources, and thus it has to go.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC).
 * Not to harp, but while SIGCOV is always delightful to have, for a decades-old non-English film its lack is not the final coffin nail... and it is verified by reliable sources as having commercial re-release more than 5 years after initial release so as to meet WP:NF#Other evidence of notability #2.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, so we can verify the film exists and that it's been shown on TV. We've got some directory entry stuff of somewhat questionable notability.  I don't doubt that there is some better information out there on dead trees somewhere, but sources that we can't locate and verify from are as good as non-existent sources here.  Yes, sources may exist.  Go and find them, and then I'll even restore the article for you myself.  But we shouldn't lower our verifiability standards for certain classes of article just because finding sources is hard.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC).


 * Keep as per . — CutestPenguinHangout 17:47, 23 October 2014 (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.