Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/24 Mani Neram: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:57, 26 September 2020 editAleatoryPonderings (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers36,675 edits changing to weak keepTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit Revision as of 04:53, 27 September 2020 edit undoAdamant1 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,341 edits Added weak deleteNext edit →
Line 41: Line 41:
<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />'''Relisting comment:''' Needs further discussion of {{u|TimothyBlue}}'s source analysis<br /> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''{{resize|91%|] to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}'''</span><br />'''Relisting comment:''' Needs further discussion of {{u|TimothyBlue}}'s source analysis<br />
<small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 11:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line --> <small>Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &ndash;&#8239;]&nbsp;<small>(])</small> 11:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)</small><!-- from Template:Relist --><noinclude>]</noinclude></div><!-- Please add new comments below this line -->
*'''Weak Delete''' It's pretty clear that this lacks multiple in-depth reliable sources about it per the good analysis of the them by TimothyBlue. That said, there is the whole "multiple passing mentions can be combined for notability" or whatever thing. Which personally I think is a bad way to do things, but it is what it is. Hence why I'm voting weak delete. Delete because it lacks multiple in-depth reliable sources, weakly though because it has a lot of passing mentions that someone could make a notability guideline based argument due to if they were so inclined. Although, I'm not that person. --] (]) 04:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:53, 27 September 2020

24 Mani Neram

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

24 Mani Neram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable film, with nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search except film database sites, video clips, and interviews with the director that mention the film. Tagged for over a year for notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Bhaskar, Prashant. "Tribute to Manivannan". Behindwoods.
This article is about Manivannan, it mentions the film, but does not provide barely any information about the film, let alone directly or in-depth.
  • மறக்க முடியுமா? - மவுன ராகம்". Dinamalar.
This article is about a different film, Mauna Ragam released in 1986. It does not mention the subject at all.
  • "Happy Birthday, Mohan: 'Payanangal Mudivathillai' to 'Mouna Ragam', six films of the lovable star that had a Silver Jubilee in theaters". The Times of India.
This is a birthday tribute to an actor from the film. I mentions the film in one paragraph, but gives no details, let alone addressing the subject directly and in depth.
  • Sunil, K. P. (29 November 1987). "The Anti-Hero". The Illustrated Weekly of India. Vol. 108. The Times Group. pp. 40–41.
Interview which mentions the film, but doesn't provide any details about the film, directly and in depth.
  • "மொட்டைத் தலையுடன் சத்யராஜ் நடித்த நூறாவது நாள்". maalaimalar.com
An article about an actor, it mentions the film in a single sentence, but provides no information directly or in depth.
  • "24 Mani Neram Tamil FIlm EP Vinyl Record by Ilayaraja". Mossymart.
This is an advertisement for a record. Nothing about the movie.
  • "Villains with heroic pasts". The Hindu.
An article about Heroes who turned villains. It mentions the film when it says, "Sathyaraj essayed some powerful antagonistic roles in 24 Mani Neram, Vikram, and Kakki Sattai." This is all. Nothing that meet SIGCOV, directly and in depth.
  • Balasubramaniam, Balaji. "Nooraavadhu Naal". BBthots.
This is a blog article and it's about another movie. It mentions the subject in a list when it says " villain of note with movies like 24 Mani Neram and Kaakki Sattai before..."...but there is no SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly or in-depth.
  • "ஒரே வருடத்தில் மோகன் 15 படங்கள்; ஒரேநாளில் 3 படம் ரிலீஸ்; அத்தனையும் ஹிட்". Hindu Tamil Thisai
Article about an actor. It mentions the film in a list, but that's all.
I ask the keep votes, Neutral Fan, Kailash29792, TamilMirchi, Ab207, Atlantic306, AleatoryPonderings, what am I missing? Which of the above sources show SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and in depth to meet NFILM or GNG? Show me and I will gladly change my vote to keep.   // Timothy :: talk  03:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs further discussion of TimothyBlue's source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete It's pretty clear that this lacks multiple in-depth reliable sources about it per the good analysis of the them by TimothyBlue. That said, there is the whole "multiple passing mentions can be combined for notability" or whatever thing. Which personally I think is a bad way to do things, but it is what it is. Hence why I'm voting weak delete. Delete because it lacks multiple in-depth reliable sources, weakly though because it has a lot of passing mentions that someone could make a notability guideline based argument due to if they were so inclined. Although, I'm not that person. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Categories: