- 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 06:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Karthik (film)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Karthik (film) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE. PravinGanechari ( talk) 03:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PravinGanechari ( talk) 03:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep The movie got coverage [ 1], [ 2]. Since it's a Kannada-language movie so I am not sure we will find alot of coverage about it in English. Fifthapril ( talk) 04:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 13:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- Strong Delete per nom. Addressing the keep vote- coverage does not denote notability. In this case, the first ref provided by
Fifthapril is a
one paragraph routine coverage from a situationally reliable source per
WP:RSP, not meeting the requirement of being a reliable, independent, significant source. Further, the second ref is evidently a press release or routine coverage, it even states "[addressing] the presspersons", so this is not a critical commentary or review, evidently failing the significant requirement. Same with the article's
ref, another very short press release purely covering the cast and plot. This leaves us with
one review from a possibly unreliable ref (which somehow couldn't be opened on my laptop). The other refs in the article are probably unreliable. Thus,
WP:NFILM is failed. Regarding
WP:GNG,
[moreover], not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources
definitely applies here- all of these refs excepting for the review are press releases/announcement columns. As my WP:BEFORE search reveals no more refs, I strongly oppose the keep vote. VickKiang 23:22, 22 September 2022 (UTC) - Delete Seems to be not notable and without any reliable sources or reviews. Agree with nom-- Dark Juliorik ( talk) 16:57, 23 September 2022 (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.