Kothaga Maa Prayanam : The article was recreated without any improvement.  Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Other_evidence_of_notability .  The film has only received one reliable review and not two.  Two of the production sources are just about the teaser and trailer.  Found these two additional sources that add nothing: [24] (cast and crew) and [25] (trailer again).  This review [26] is deemed not notable.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 14:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Keep . There's the 123telugu review.  The Tollywood.net review mentioned above seems okayish.  There is also this but the site is not really considered reliable.  However the Times of India mentions the fact that the "film attracted a young audience" ( here ) and production has attracted some attention (interviews, filming stills, etc.). - MY, OH MY!  (mushy yank) 22:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom.  123 Telagu source is usable, but I'm unconvinced that Tollywood is reliable.  It has been discussed only once at RSN on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 376#Wanted to know whether these websites are reliable sources .  The discussion involved one editor making a neutral note, another giving a detailed analysis on why the site is unreliable, followed by another editor adding the ref to WP:UPSD , which seems to affirm unreliability.  Admittedly a RS discussion with only two participants offering views probably shows that there is only weak consensus for unreliability, but clearly it does not seem like this site should be presumed as a RS for its reviews (also the site doesn't have a clear editorial policy, at least for the English version).  In contrast, The Times of India source linked above is only a WP:MREL source.  Moreover, in this case the coverage is extensively quotes.  I don't think that quotes would automatically discount a source from independence and SIGCOV, but in this case excluding the quotes the ref has only two short paragraphs and another one-sentence paragraph, which is insufficient for SIGCOV IMO.  Likewise, other refs in the article are even shorter and similarly fails SIGCOV or independence.  My search could not find more sources contributing to WP:GNG and WP:NFILM so this is a delete, and I respectfully disagree with the analysis above.  VickKiang (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak Delete per VickKiang's analysis.   We lack sufficient independent, reliable sources to support an article.   The delete is weak because I'd prefer to fight systematic bias by keeping mainstream but relatively low profile Indian films and because I am relying on other editors' analysis of the Telegu language sources.   But we need a solid base from which to work and that is lacking here.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 21:38, 17 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete