Ramrajya (2022 film): The only press it released was because the movie stars Rakul Preet Singh 's brother.  Did not receive reviews from any major publication post release and therefore fails WP:NFILM Jupitus Smart 02:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Hinduism ,  and India .  Jupitus Smart 02:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep At least 2 reviews, one here promising the film will go unnoticed and one in the Times of India , titled "This Ramrajya is not worth a cinema ticket'.  MY, OH MY!  (mushy yank) 07:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Even if we consider the Times of India review, the Filminformation source is just a blog and not considered reliable according to our standards WP:ICTFSOURCES .  It would therefore not pass the standard for 2 reviews from reliable sources.  Jupitus Smart 17:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thank you for your input but I’m convinced it does, I’m afraid.  For a better assessment of Film Information, see their page bottom About Us or read this , or Komal Nahta .  - MY, OH MY!  (mushy yank) 14:20, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are free to make your assumptions though it does not align with what we generally accept.  And Komal Nahta owning Filminformation does not impart any automatic notability to the website as notability is not inherited.  And looking at the review's quality it appears to not have been written by Komal Nahta ( it just mentions Filminformation as the author ) compared to other articles like this - [34] which explicitly mentions him as the author.  Jupitus Smart 15:03, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I am not making any assumption, and  my point is that I do think the film meets the criteria generally accepted.  Here too, I ask you to kindly permit me to leave it at that.  Thank you.  - MY, OH MY!  (mushy yank) 16:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Also refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maheshworld which concerns this.  Socking by a probable paid syndicate.  Jupitus Smart 15:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hundred Bucks , where the same comments have been posted.  - MY, OH MY!  (mushy yank) 16:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as we have one editor who believes that the sources are sufficient and one editor who doesn't.  We need to hear from more editors, especially those who are well acquainted with Film notability standards.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Weak keep .  Interesting case of a film whose pre-release coverage seems to have been overwhelmingly vaster than its near zero post-release coverage.  As to rules, NFILM provides some guideposts but defers entirely to the WP:GNG on substance.  So the real question is whether the film has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject .  Notably, while WP:NFF cautions us against overly hasty article creation for films that have not yet been released, there is no rule that states that pre-release coverage does not count toward notability for a film that has been released.  The pre-release coverage here includes pieces in ICTF-approved outlets, including e.g. Indian Express .  We also have these two interesting pieces from The Free Press Journal , the ICTF's view of which is not entirely clear to me but which it at least discusses alongside other reputable news sources.  (While both of these last two contain a substantial interview component, as entertainment journalism often does, WP:INTERVIEWS cautions us not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It seems to me that all of these pieces contain sufficient actual reporting to meet the sigcov threshold of address[ing] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. .)  On the whole, I wouldn't call this a slam dunk.  But construing the rules flexibly in accordance with our encyclopedic purpose , it seems to me that the article subject meets the minimum requirements of the GNG and thus NFILM.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per Visviva .   The coverage seems sufficient to support an article.   It is pretty limited in both quantity and quality but in my opinion it's enough.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 04:59, 22 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: keep