Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lakshmi Putrudu

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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Putrudu

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

Not notable (maybe on the Telugu Wikipedia)?; "In progress now" recentism hasn't been updated since 2007. Discussion welcome. WBTtheFROG (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There seem to be a bit of English language reviews/coverage[1][2][3] and there are almost certainly more Telugu mentions. Aside from notability, being out of date is not grounds for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Solid Keep. Topic meets WP:NF as being a completed film that has been the subject of multiple articles before and after its completion. Did the nominator look before bringing this here to discuss its deletion? To disagree with the nominator's use of the essay on recentism, I remind him that notability is not temporary and it is to be found through sources being available, and not in whether they have been used in an article or not. It is not neccessary that a film topic remain in the headlines 4 years after a film's release, just so long as it had the required coverage to meet WP:NF in the first place... which this film did. Just as pointed out by User:Colapeninsula, sources were ridulously easy to find,[4][5] and in just a few minutes I was able to use just a few of them to begin expansion of the article.[6] We do not delete stub articles on notable topics because they have lacked attention. And, as shown by only a few edits, a concern over stubbiness or sourcing is something that can be addressed through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for sure. Though a commercially dull movie it had received enough coverage as seen in the references currently provided. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the fact that WP:NTEMP exists. A certainly notable topic. Secret of success 08:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Note from my Talk page:

"As the article Lakshmi Putrudu has gone through a 12x expansion and sourcing since first nominated, might you consider a withdrawal so we can close the AFD? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)"

There has clearly been a lot more work done on the article. I'm not sure that the references provided do a great job of establishing notability and rather seem to establish the opposite, but as the original AFD nominator I'm not going to fight hard for deletion. WBTtheFROG (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing my note from your talk page to here. The topic has the coverage to meet WP:NF... and even a film panned by critics can be found notable. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:59, 10 April 2012 (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.