Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Monk

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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 02:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Monk[edit]

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

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

No coverage in reliable sources. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Was screened at Cannes in 2006.[1] There was coverage in the offline editions of India Today[2] and The Hollywood Reporter[3]. 2001:8F8:172B:51C3:547B:97A1:5FF6:9790 (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being screened at Cannes — alongside sixty five (!) other films in the Indian pavillion — confers no automatic passage of notability. There would have been some merit in your argument if the film was atleast in the long list for any award.

The Hollywood Reporter catalogs every single movie screened at Cannes (or any other festival of some repute) and this is no exception. The details — cast, plot, runtime, etc. — are sourced from the filmmakers themselves; the coverage is not even independent. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 2001:8F8:172B:51C3:547B:97A1:5FF6:9790.There is coverage.Zealspar100 (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is with the IPs and SPAs? TrangaBellam (talk) 03:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 2001:8F8:172B:51C3:547B:97A1:5FF6:9790. The article would greatly benefit from improvements though.Alexcs114 (talk) 07:54, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero coverage in French media for the film, using .fr websties, showing how non-notable it was at the time it was at Cannes. It wasn't a feature of the festival, simply shown at the same time in a pavilion. Oaktree b (talk) 13:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:09, 6 June 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.