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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abhirami (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is yet another film article that fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG.

References: Two mentioning in an Indian newspaper. No in-depth coverage otherwise. Kolma8 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kolma8 (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - redundant nomination - reliable sources are cited, including one which provides a positive review of the film in a leading Indian newspaper. You will find no in-depth coverage for most Indian films released before the 2000s, particulary the regional non-Hindi films, and it does not mean they are not notable. Sadly no archives exist for Indian newspapers as they do in publications from the west. I'm sure coverage existed even if it is not entirely available now, but I'm graeful to those who must have spent some time digging in the archives to find the ones that are cited on the page now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment at Shahid: I am happily will withdraw this nomination if you can support the notability based on Wikipedia:Notability_(films). I searched and failed. Your point that a film is notable because "coverage existed even if it is not available now" is a bit strange in my opinion and needs to be supported. Thanks Kolma8 (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kolma8: I didn't mean to offend you, I'm sorry if my remark was inappropriate. My perception of Wikipedia is inclusive, I believe it should be a center of knowledge, even about lesser known subjects. In my view, every film the release of which is proven and receives even minimal coverage in at least one reliable source, deserves a Wikipedia article. I'm highly against this habit of filtering out all articles on films, and I think there's a great bias here against Indian films (not specifically you). Sorry, a review in The Indian Express is no mean thing. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Shshshsh: In no way I felt that you were trying to offend me and I do agree that non-US/West films have a lesser chance to qualify for itsown article on WP for different reasons, but nonetheless the criteria should be followed. And this film as many other Indian films were just mass-uploaded into WP seemingly without any order or consideration to WP guidance. Thanks, Kolma8 (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in-depth coverage is needed to keep articles, so actually reading even the keep vote is to see an admission that this article needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Johnpacklambert: Hi there, you misinterpret my comment. My vote clearly relied on the sources that are already there, which reference one of India's leading newspapers. I did say that most Indian films before the 2000s do not have existing coverage in the media because no archives exist, and the existing sources are proof to that. Not every film receives a review from The Indian Express. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- good, rare sources are listed in the article. Notable cast, completes their portfolio of work. Neutral Fan (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for adding the sources. I think the first one is the film's poster on the p.4, was that something else? The #2 is a good source going through the plot. Still does not demonstrate meeting WP:NFILM and WP:GNG criteria in my opinion. Kolma8 (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.