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. (non-admin closure) f e minist 09:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Lechmi

Lechmi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Unremarkable film, no discussion in reliable independent verifiable sources. KDS4444 ( talk) 14:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep This film hasnt released yet so this shouldn't be considered unremarkable until after the release KuleenK 11:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 15:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC) reply

(This isn't how the English Wikipedia works... KDS4444 ( talk) 06:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)) reply

Per WP:NFF, WP:WIP, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:POTENTIAL that's how it does work. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Michael, I get the sense that we are going off on wrong feet, you and I... WP:NFF only gives direction as to when a film should not have its own article; WP:WIP, which states that Wikipedia is a "work in progress", does not mean we should retain articles on subjects which are not independently notable; WP:IMPERFECT states that perfection is not required— I am not arguing that this article is not perfect, I am arguing that it is not notable; WP:POTENTIAL states that article potential, not its current state, should be the measure of inclusion— I don't disagree! I have evaluated the references here and those I could find elsewhere and I do not see evidence of notability. That doesn't mean it might not be notable at some point, it only means that so far, based on what we've been able to find, it is not notable now (and who knows— perhaps never will be). What you've added there is a laundry list of WP:AADD— I am still not sure I accept your reasoning to retain this particular article based on what either of us has found so far, its potential and imperfections and curiosity aside. If a subject is not notable, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it, yes? KDS4444 ( talk) 02:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Then we shall disagree. I believe it is notable enough to merit and article and continue being improved, and you do not. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Sort of— I do not see evidence of its notability; you, however, do, which is what I do not understand and is why we are differing here. Notability shouldn't be a matter of "belief", it should be a matter of "evidence", and what either of us believes shouldn't matter at that point. I do not believe that you've reviewed/ read the evidence you have offered, esp. with regard to some of it being in a foreign language that neither of us understands or can show a translation of— I have considered the other evidence, including Google Translate versions of the foreign language text, and I don't think any of it qualifies. You can disagree with me all you like, but you could shut me up better if you reviewed your own evidence thoroughly before offering it up as evidence of notability, yes? KDS4444 ( talk) 12:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC) reply

• Keep Sorry KDS4444, but due diligence shows the topic IS discussed directly and in some detail in independent verifiable sources Using Now Running, Filmibeat, Metro Matinee, Deccan Chronicle, Times of India and others, the article can be corrected to meet MOS:FILM through regular editing. Releases next month. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC) reply

@ MichaelQSchmidt: the article in the Times of India (first one I went to) is an article that talks about how an actress in the movie was injured on the set. It is not "about" the movie, it is about the actress and her injury (please tell me you read each of these references you mentioned and evaluated them for appropriateness, yes? Though if you did, this one, for starters, doesn't make the cut). If you are going to refute a deletion nomination (and I say, by all means!) then please throw appropriate references out there (esp. ones that discuss the subject itself in a non-trivial manner and in multiple, reliable, independent sources). Having the film mentioned in passing in an article about an actress getting injured does not meet this qualification! But do your other references? Please advise! Thanks! KDS4444 ( talk) 06:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply

Likewise, the Deccan Chronicle article has no actual content! What are you doing? And the Metro Matinée article by "Maya" that only lists the cast members? Did you read these? The "filmibeat" article isn't even in English. Michael, I am now convinced that you did not actually read any of these "references." If you want to discuss this further, maybe we should go to my talk page. Listing a series of "references" that you are somehow sure demonstrate the notability of this film without actually reviewing any of them and using this as a defense of a "Keep" vote is... Let's not discuss this further here. Please bring it to my talk page (...and consider removing your Keep vote here, okay? If others want to make a keep argument based on bona fide evidence of reliability, they should be encouraged to do so. I know its awkward....). Thanks! KDS4444 ( talk) 09:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply

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

WP:INDAFD: Lechmi Shajeer Sha Parvathy Ratheesh Biju Sopanam

• Sorry, KDS4444, and please do not be offended, but your brief deletion rational stated that there was "no discussion in reliable independent verifiable sources". Telling folks such as if a fact is misleading and required clarification. And stating that I did not read sources seems to confirm that you did not.

Under WP:SIGCOV, sources never have to be "all about" or "only about" the film, just so long as they do address it directly and in some detail. Times of India tells us that a major star was injured while shooting one of her scenes in Trivandrum for the film. It also confirms the director/writer and that actress Molly Kannammally is in a major role. Confirming those production facts is significant, though brief. It must be remembered that the guideline for " significant" is not the same as a non-guideline thought toward " substantial". Metro Matinee tells our readers that Biju Sopanam of the Indian sitcom Uppum Mulakum is confirmed in this film, while also confirming a shoot location and confirming an injury when a star did not use a stunt double. Not lengthy, but significant production information.

And sources do not have to be text only. The Deccan Chronicle provides a news clip speaking toward the film's projected release. Text, no. Video, yes. Acceptable under WP:RS WP:NEWSORG.

AND under WP:NONENG it is perfectly understood and acceptable that a non-English film can have non-English sourcing. "ലച്ച്മി" gives us non-English sourcing with a Malayalam Google search.

Again, your brief deletion rational stated that there was "no discussion in reliable independent verifiable sources" in unintentionally misleading when the topic is discussed (even if briefly) in multiple reliable sources. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC) reply

I guess I should have said "no significant discussion" in such sources. I also didn't mention "secondary" or "published" or "non-trivial". My point was that I did not see appropriate discussion in appropriate sources to qualify this film as notable— and I do not consider a series of trivial and off-hand mentions as adding up to that qualification. The confirmation of facts about the film is the equivalent of saying "Existence=notability", which we both know is not the case. I am not doubting the film's existence. Also: WP:NONENG was not my point— I am aware that non-English news sources can be used to support a notability argument. My point was that I doubted that you yourself read that source (or others) and evaluated it as to whether or not it supported a notability claim (did you read it? How does it support such a claim?). The brevity of my deletion rationale does not thereby make the film notable, it only means the rationale was brief. Regarding the Deccan Chronicle video— I didn't realize you spoke fluent Hindi Urdu Tamil (?), since the site provides no transcription nor translation of the video content. Can you give me a quote where the film's projected release is discussed? Much appreciated. Thanks! KDS4444 ( talk) 11:43, 10 July 2017 (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.