Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nandanavanam 120km

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 09:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nandanavanam 120km[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability per WP:FILMNOT. I can only find references comparable to the IMDB. WP:FILMNOT states, "A film's entry in the The Internet Movie Database can provide valuable information, or any other similar databases, including links to reviews, articles, and media references. A page in the database does not by itself establish the film's notability, however." CrimsonBlue (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CrimsonBlue (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CrimsonBlue (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned in Gooogle News, Telugu One. Since the film is in Telugu, that language's references should be counted too (I can't read the language) --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep A released film that has coverage in both English[1] and Telugu language sources. Article and project will benefit form this being improved per available sources, but not by deletion because it has not yet been done. WP:NRVE, WP:IMPERFECT, WP:UGLY, WP:DEADLINE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article has received significant coverage in the media. To name a few:

[2],[3],[4], [5], [6]. As MichaelQSchmidt says, just because the article is poorly written, it shouldn't be deleted. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:06, 15 January 2013 (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.