Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dharmam Engey

Dharmam Engey

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Dharmam Engey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Only two potential RS: Guy is RS, the Dina Thanthi source is only cited to a release date change and that seems to be mostly what they publish about movies from what I have seen (could not find the exact article sourced, insufficient info and from 1972). The other cited sources are variously not about topic (Ragunathan), retail (Mossymart), and a list (151 etc). BEFORE found no further RS. Redirect to the director may be a better alternative than deletion, per Mushy Yank, if this discussion doesn't result in Keep. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and India. StartGrammarTime (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - notable cast and director, full article by notable film historian in very reliable newspaper, sources for verification; all in all could be judged enough. A redirect to the director being absolutely warranted in my view, very opposed to deletion (I deproDed the page; same nominator).My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Mushy Yank, could you please point me towards that source if it's online somewhere? I searched and couldn't find it, and everything I could find was extremely sparse with details (hence the PROD and now this). I like to be able to keep articles and make them better if sources exist! StartGrammarTime (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  The Hindu article cited in the page (the source you call "Guy", I think) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, that's the one I counted as a reliable source - I was hoping you'd found the Dina Thanthi one (which I couldn't) to make it two RS. Thanks for clarifying! StartGrammarTime (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

  The Dina Thanthi source was simply an authentic poster I saw on social media, so I included the newspaper details without using the social media link. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sivaji_Ganesan_filmography#Films. I would not redirect to director's page as that page is quite poor. As nominator said, only two reliable sources on the page but it has no significant indepth coverage. If reliable secondary sources with indepth coverage can be found, let me know but till then fails wP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

  I am sorry but the article by Randor Guy in The Hindu addresses the film directly and in depth. It is a strong indication of notability and was published in a column dedicated to "Tamil classics". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments to Keep and Redirect (an outcome I assume the nominator is okay with).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Sivaji_Ganesan_filmography#Films per RangersRus. This has been open for weeks and still all we have found is a review in The Hindu. Yes, the review addresses the film, but it is a single source. It is paywalled so all I can see is the intro of the review, but even if it is significant coverage we have to consider WP:NEWSORGINDIA, which raises an unanswered question regarding independence. This is a case where we definitely need more than a single review to demonstrate notability. Ultimately an article should not be kept if there is insufficient information to write an encyclopaedic article. That is the case here. Redirecting would allow the page history to be recovered and the article recreated if a range of suitable secondary sources became available in the future. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
• Keep The last The Hindu source that I added mentions the film four times reiterating the director, actress and box office failure. Feel like this AFD was done quickly without going to Google Translate and finding Tamil-language sources. DareshMohan (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  It still only counts as one source, and multiple are needed - even if these are indeed independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  I meant the Hindu Tamil Thisai source [1]. Multiple new sources that I added mention different aspects of the film's failure. @Sirfurboy: DareshMohan (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

  Sirfurboy, the English Hindu archive link is not affected by the paywall so you can view it. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. For some reason the archive gave me no content when I looked yesterday. Reading it now, it is much as I expected. This review does give something to write the article off, but it remains a single source. We don't yet have any others. The WP:NEWSORGINDIA question remains, although there is no strong reason to suspect this one is not independent. If we had multiple sources, I'd be willing to count this as one. But we still need multiple sources for GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep The sources are thin, but I am convinced there are enough to support this article. I would also support a merge, but I am skeptical of the targets mentioned here. Either way, that can be discussed outside of the AFD. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Opposed to redirect but A. C. Tirulokchandar is a better target [2]. DareshMohan (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - Analysis of added sources - The following sources were added to the article since my !vote. To count towards GNG each source must have significant coverage, be independent of the subject and be in a reliable secondary source. Some of these sources are the same publication, and count together, but that is moot as I dont think any reach significant coverage. I have reviewed them all in translation, and my thoughts are as follows:

1. [3] - This is just a line in a list of films. Not SIGCOV.
2. [4] - About a different film. Could not find any mention. Clearly not SIGCOV.
3. [5] Article about two "geniuses". Cannot see any mention of the film. Clearly not SIGCOV.
4. [6] A crowd of 150 people caused the film to run for 2 days. That's all it says. Not SIGCOV.
5. [7] Article about an actor, states they acted in the film. that is all. Not SIGCOV.
6. [8] Another article about the same actor also states they acted in the film and that the film did not touch 100 days. That is all. Not SIGCOV
7. [9] - This is the longest write up of all, again about the same actor. It says:

   Where is Dharma: Director A.C. The film is directed by Triloka Chander and produced by Shanti Films. MS Viswanathan has composed the music for this. Sivaji Ganesan and J Jayalalithaa are playing the lead roles in it. But even though this film did not get a good reception in terms of collection, it became a film that attracted the hearts of the fans.

   - that is all. That is not SIGCOV either. Bear in mind that significant coverage needs to provide information from which the page can be created. Other than the fact that this film flopped, we have almost nothing here to use in the article. Thus the keep votes appear to be premature. There is no pass of WP:GNG here. Happy to discuss the most suitable redirect target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The name of the film is தர்மம் எங்கே, and is mentioned in source 2 and 3. Source 5 is the one I mentioned earlier, which also just mentions the director, actor, actress and box office failure. Since they might not be SIGCOV, maybe a second review will help. DareshMohan (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

So then source 2 says of the same actor:

Then on 15th July, he took action film 'Where is Dharma' directed by A.C. Thirulokachandar. Jayalalitha acted opposite Shivaji in this.

This is not SIGCOV. There is nothing about the film here. Source 3 is merely the title and nothing else in a long list of collaborations of the "two geniuses". Nothing but the title. Clearly not SIGCOV. So again, none of these have SIGCOV. The only significant coverage in any source seen so far is in the Hindu source, which is actually a review of the film. But a single review is never enough for GNG, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA raises questions as to whether even that one is sufficient. This is not, under any measure, a GNG pass. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong keep: There are sufficient sources to save the article from deletion. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  What sources? Could you list any three sources that have significant coverage, that are independent reliable secondary sources? Votes don't matter, but actual sources do. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:54, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  Note to closer - This editor has been canvassed to this deletion discussion [10]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  He was NOT canvassing! He just informed me of the AfD, and I volunteered to salvage the article. In fact, most of it was expanded by me. Since it's not on my watchlist and the Indian cinema task force didn't alert me, I don't know how else I could have known about the AfD. While I've been working my butt off (sorry, no rudeness or profanity intended) since the last few years to save pre-2000s Tamil film articles from deletion, others relish in getting them deleted rather than seeking help expanding. The uncontested, uninformed deletion of Puthiya Vaarpugal (I got it restored and expanded) angered me enough to prevent other Tamil film articles from suffering a similar fate. The English Hindu article and multiple Hindu Tamil articles guarantee the article deserves to exist since they are NOT passing mentions. They actually talk about the film's release date and reception, and how it was Sivaji's only unsuccessful film in an otherwise celebrated year. Also notable because Sivaji was primarily a dramatic actor, yet this film was atypical by favouring action. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  It is certainly fair enough that you should be commenting here, but it is not a WP:APPNOTE if a single contributor only is approached based on their expected views. In any case, what still matters is sources. We do not have SIGCOV in multiple sources. If you are able to find such significant coverage, then the article would be shown to be notable, but as it stands, we do not. Can you name three sources with significant coverage, that are independent, reliable secondary sources? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

  I made the notification neutral. On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article Check this article's history, he is the main contributor. This editor (Kailash) devotes his time to improving old Tamil-language films. Even if he voted to delete the article, I wouldn't mind as maybe because this films isn't famous like Puthiya Vaarpugal. Just try to applaud his efforts. There seems to be implicit bias on English Wikipedia towards non-English films. There are several sources in this film but based on your argument it seems like if all the information was in one source instead of compiled from many, the film would have been notable. DareshMohan (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)