Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24 Mani Neram

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. I think the balance from the analysis is against the sources but it was late in the discussion contributions post this are just not convincingly swayed by this for me to feel comfortable deleting or that this was the winning argument. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

24 Mani Neram

[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)

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article does not meet GNG or NFILM. Sources in the article do not provide SIGCOV that addresses the subject directly and indepth and BEFORE showed only results such as the nominator indicated. // Timothy :: talk 03:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Timothy, does not satisfy wp:nfilm or wp:sigcov --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 17:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to concerns around WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 19:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Added sources from a number of notable national newspapers - and there are dozens more online. Please bear in mind that this is a 1983 Tamil film - not sure what kind of in-depth coverage one can expect to find online. I can assure you that this is a notable film in Tamil cinema history. Keen to hear thoughts of those potentially well-versed with the subject matter: TamilMirchi, Srivin, Kailash29792, Terminator92 Neutral Fan (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources have been added in compliance with WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The addition of sources and the success of the film make it notable.TamilMirchi (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per added sources. --Ab207 (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article has been expanded with the addition of multiple reliable sources that show a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per some great WP:HEY teamwork by TamilMirchi, Kailash29792, and Neutral Fan. Meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Having had another look at the sources, I'm not convinced about their reliability. [1] looks promising, especially the bit stating that it ran for around 27 weeks. But, as TB notes below, a fair number of these sources look like blogs. Not knowing Tamil, I can't look for additional sources, so I am admittedly judging these "books" by their "covers". AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question and Comment: Since there were so many Keep votes I went back through the sources so see if I was wrong. I found nothing that comes close to meeting GNG or NFILM. Here is my run down on the sources:

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)[reply]

Keep: the 'added sources' won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Keepthe addition of multiple reliable sources has proved notability. Wm335td (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, none of the sources provided have WP:SIGCOV, although it's a film from the 80s so it is possible that better sources are available. Would need at least a proper review of the film from a source, imv before it could be considered notable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:56, 16 October 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.