Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agra (2007 film) (2nd nomination)

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. Whether it passes WP:NFILM isn't a sure thing, but after nearly a month of discussion there seems to be a lack of compelling arguments for deletion. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 07:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agra (2007 film)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It is not a G4 and the re-creation was allowed per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_March_11 but it's unclear that the sourcing meets significant element of NFILM/GNG. Sify lacks a byline and Chennai Online is not enough on its own. A search does not identify any further coverage that could be added. Star Mississippi 17:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Star Mississippi 17:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete not much else besides IMDB, at the same time it is on IMDB. KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes NFILM - sources added and article improved. Three full reviews are there (including the reliable Sify), with extra coverage on its release from other platforms, and on production details. Neutral Fan (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Users who spend time and create deleted articles should be encouraged. Chennai Online is reliable because the writer is from The Indian Express. Dinamalar is also a reliable source and the source mentions the film. All in all, beautiful article. DareshMohan (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am currently neutral, but oppose keep right now, as the rationales provided aren't convincing at all. It's very difficult to assert whether this meets GNG, first of all, refs 4 isn't enough. Another reply said that Dinamalar is also a reliable source and the source mentions the film, but "mentions the film" isn't enough, SIGCOV, at least one long paragraph (it isn't official, but in AfC, it says so), this isn't met for this, as ref 4, 5, 6 are non-significant, mentions aren't sufficient. The other refs are unreliable, except for the three full reviews that discussion is needed. Sify is a technology site, I am not sure if it's an RS for films, it also isn't indexed in Rotten Tomatoes, or Metacritic. Chennai Online is perhaps not a clear and cut RS (I'd say it's marginally reliable?), but its reviewer appeared in Indian Express, but the critic isn't an RT approved critic? The other one is a popular website with a very well-known YouTube channel, but has a very questionable, poor about us, with no WP page, checking its articles on COVID-19, it's all right, but very superficial and short. So this is probably marginally reliable, whether it counts towards GNG is uncertain. Ref 10 is an SPS, very poorly written, about has no policies, with grammar errors in its about us, then say it's powered by WordPress (non-reliable), so it's not an RS at all. So, there are only three refs that may count towards GNG, even these are debatable. Further, the keep comment on it passing Wikipedia:NFILM, from my POV, inaccurate. It says [t]he film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics as the criteria I am assuming that DareshMohan says it meets. This isn't true, as none of the critics are nationally known, they lack a WP page, Rotten Tomatoes page, or MC page, plus all websites aren't established enough. So I refute this. Though, the guideline states [f]or the majority of topics related to film, the criteria established at the general notability guideline are sufficient to follow. But does this meet GNG? There's lots of sources, but IMO the quality of these are debatable, so I won't give a vote for now. I also strongly disagree with these lines: Dinamalar is also a reliable source and the source mentions the film. All in all, beautiful article. I don't see how this is a beautiful article, this isn't relevant to Notability, and it cites too many poor refs or need expansion/clarification, so I disagree with this (see my previous comment for disagreeing with the Dinamalar ref. Of course, this comment is far too long and not well worded, apologies, and many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sify is a reliable source per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Malini Mannath has been writing for The Indian Express for decades and later The New Indian Express. I agree with you that other than the three reviews, the other sources do not give much/are not notable but you must remember that it is hard to search sources and nobody has searched The Hindu archives (the search bar only goes back to 2011). DareshMohan (talk) 07:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that the NFILM criteria of reviews by two or more nationally known critics is met here. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Expanded well enough with multiple reviews. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do not keep per VickKiang. Does not meet NFILM since we have the name of only one reviewer. However it may be considered if "critic" and "review website" are seen as the same. Does not have significant coverage in sources. I have twice removed content related to production of another movie from the article, and today removed coverage about the producer/director's arrest related to production of another movie. Unlike mentioned above, I could not find mention of the film in Dinamalar. I am fine with moving to draft, if it's going to take time to get sources, such as by going through the archives of The Hindu as DareshMohan mentioned above. Jay 07:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Readded the Dinamalar reference. The reference says ""ஆக்ரா' படம் தயாரிப்பதாக கூறி, 5.30 லட்சம் ரூபாய்" in which "ஆக்ரா" refers to this film "Agra". Jay removed it because Google Translate had faulty translation and did not translate correctly. DareshMohan (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, and the fix. No change in my vote though. Jay 💬 07:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of WP:NFILM nationally known critic refers to critics writing for a reliable national publication which gives them a national audience. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFILM. BBSTOP (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFILM, has reviews in more than one reliable sources.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not what WP:NFILM says. I have added to the discussion you started at WT:Notability (films)#"Nationally-known critic" as it relates to films of India. Jay 💬 11:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - consensus seems pretty clear. The first 'weak delete' is before sources were added. Neutral Fan (talk) 10:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, it seems that there are 6 participants favouring and 4 opposing keep. But I'm still unsure about how WP:NFILM is met, feel free to join the discussion Jay linked. Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 05:43, 14 August 2022 (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.