629:, which again i think further helps establish notability. I am sure on further digging more notable commentary is bound to come up. It can establish notability, there are way less notable characters that have a page here. I am not saying that it justifies the creation of more articles, in any way but i do believe that as per the standards of notability, this very well satisfies it.
532:: Critics have praised her character and every single character in the film deserves its own article because the "Baahubali" brand is bigger and is notable enough to command an article. Just because she is getting all the attention in this film? Just because her characters evolves in the new installment? Still there is enough notability to keep the article.
829:
clueless as to who any of the other (South Indian) characters you mention are), believe that a little more digging on the independent research on this particular character wouldn't hurt anyone. It'll also make sure that we don't miss out on any non-South Indian analytical piece. I reiterate that I am only offering a defense for
901:
I would recommend providing links to these sources either here or putting them in the article to support your point. Also, please refrain from hyperbole during your argument. While it may be true that there are several articles out there about these character, I highly doubt that there are "millions"
828:
be judged overnight makes sense to me. Also justified are your comments regarding fandom, which can be a major problem if we proceed at the this rate. However, considering that I as someone unfamiliar with the South Indian cinema, having heard so much about the character (I am sorry, but I am totally
790:
Sari (again from various films of the actress) in the past. Going by that logic, practically we might end up with an article on almost every character of
Rajinikanth in the last 1.5 decades or so. To sum up, the "prominence" of a fictional character cannot be determined overnight; we're looking for
866:
Avanthika's character received massive backlash and 1000s of articles were dedicated to point out the miscogny of
Baahubali and their relationship. And, Sivagami was another character which everyone praised and again it received massive coverage. It's just Devasena's main storyline was revealed in
673:
Yes, that seems like the sensible thing to do, however, I am not sure if we're going to get any commentary at the individual pages at all. I am not underestimating anyone's interest here, but I just think a lot of unrelated conflicts have come up during the procesd already. That said, I think this
651:
Just as a suggestion, it may be better to do individual nominations for these characters so that way users can provide links to support whether or not the individual article has enough notability to stay or not (I know that is a pain, but it might be the easiest way of doing this; mass nominations
767:
Thanks for the sources. I'm afraid TNM isn't a reliable source. Besides, the site (and this particular author) is known to call out sexism in almost all newly released Tamil films. She analyses even the smallest of a misrepresented female character in the smallest film. Second, talking about the
869:
Coming to
Rajnikanth's characters, well, I am sure he can have a Chitti article arfter the release of Robot 2. I am sure it should have been created just after the release of the first part. Anyways, coming back to Baahubali, I would like to add that it has become a huge brand in India as has
696:
Thank you for your comment and that makes sense to me. Thank you for providing the sources for the primary article being put up for deletion. I would lean more towards keep based on your provided links/references. It is difficult for me to assess these articles as they are so outside of my
674:
article clearly has enough independent research to warrant an individual article. Can't say about the rest, and honestly I don't think I have the energy or the interest to play a part in any of the rulings, but I can say with some assurance that
Vensatry might have misjudged this one.
652:
can be tricky. I have done one before and I have seen them done, but this case may be better with individual nominations if that makes sense). Take this suggestion with a great pinch of salt though as I am still relatively inexperienced on here.
711:
Yes, I understand your doubts, in cases like these even the editors well versed with the topic face trouble reaching a verdict. Still, thank you for your valuable time Aoba47, I am sure that it'll really help the reviewers reach a decision.
863:
can have their articles just after the release of the film (overnight), then I think these nominations are questionable. Like
Furiosa, the female characters of Baahubali have created a huge debate (positive or negative it does not matter).
617:
199:
The character has little or no notability outside the film. None of the sources used in the article substantively talk about the character to establish its notability or to warrant a standalone article. This one clearly fails
168:
624:
talks about the female characters of the film, in a manner you rarely see Indian film/television characters being talked about. As far as the popularity goes, the character has warranted merchandise sales as it says
611:
I am going to have to side with Krish here. It might not be clear enough from his defensedefense, but atleast
Devasana (and possibly the Baahubali (s)) have had enough independent commentary to warrant an article.
872:
I am even surprised that the nominator even nominated the most popular characters of the film: Kattapa and
Baahubali. Kattapa is already an iconic character, and millions of articles are dedicated to him.
752:
561:
character can have an article, so can "Baahubali". The fandom is huge, the brand is biggest India has ever gotten introduced to and her character is very crucial for the entire series.
162:
782:
is the official jewelry designer for the film. So this is clearly a case of promotional stunt (for both the film and the store). To cite a few examples, we've had
613:
121:
964:
944:
305:
300:
449:
444:
309:
94:
89:
453:
128:
98:
292:
626:
586:
Just because critics "praise" a character it automatically doesn't qualify to have an article over here. Please read the relevant guideline.
436:
81:
621:
902:
of articles (that have significant coverage from third-party, outside sources other than plot summary) as that can weaken your argument.
183:
150:
401:
396:
405:
697:
knowledge/understanding as I am not familiar with Indian cinema at all so I do not want to make a misstep or misjudge anything.
768:
characters of a "blockbuster" film isn't a new thing as far as South Indian cinema is concerned. As a matter of fact, even the
17:
388:
867:
second part, which also has received huge press. And, don't even get me started on the male characters. They are huge too.
257:
252:
144:
497:
492:
261:
501:
353:
348:
140:
824:
Although I am not familiar with the trends of the South Indian cinema, the point that the prominence of a character
1019:
1000:
976:
956:
935:
911:
894:
850:
819:
761:
729:
706:
691:
661:
646:
606:
581:
552:
357:
296:
244:
228:
63:
1038:
843:
722:
684:
639:
484:
440:
85:
40:
190:
792:
340:
860:
61:
778:
was much talked about and "analysed" by a few critics. Good point about merchandising, but unfortunately
1034:
757:
288:
36:
156:
836:
715:
677:
632:
432:
77:
69:
616:
is a meaty commentary on the character's impact on a film industry's handling of women. More pieces
176:
933:
810:
597:
392:
219:
972:
952:
856:
783:
769:
54:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1033:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
907:
885:
702:
657:
572:
558:
543:
870:
received massive attention of everyone. Each and every character deserves its own article.
779:
988:
796:
248:
205:
1009:
928:
802:
774:
589:
488:
384:
211:
201:
968:
948:
344:
518:
470:
422:
374:
326:
278:
115:
903:
875:
698:
668:
653:
562:
533:
791:
longtime significance. If WP were to exist in 1975, even an iconic character
874:
I am surprised that he didn't even think once before nominating his article.
240:
480:
787:
336:
1027:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
234:
Also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
786:
hairstyle (based on her character from a particular film),
753:
list of
Fictional elements-related deletion discussions
514:
510:
506:
466:
462:
458:
418:
414:
410:
370:
366:
362:
322:
318:
314:
274:
270:
266:
111:
107:
103:
175:
927:
Unnotable film character and article in long term. -
1008:- outside of the film, absolutely no notability.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1041:). No further edits should be made to this page.
189:
8:
963:Note: This debate has been included in the
943:Note: This debate has been included in the
751:Note: This debate has been included in the
965:list of India-related deletion discussions
962:
942:
750:
945:list of Film-related deletion discussions
987:Completely unnotable film character. —
7:
24:
833:and not the others. Thank you.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1058:
1030:Please do not modify it.
1020:12:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
64:00:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1001:14:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
977:23:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
957:23:46, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
936:06:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
912:14:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
895:07:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
851:05:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
820:05:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
762:09:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
730:19:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
707:18:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
692:18:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
662:17:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
647:16:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
607:06:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
582:06:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
557:Additionally, if every
553:06:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
229:06:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
795:would not have passed
289:Baahubali (character)
855:I beg to differ. If
433:Sivagami (character)
78:Devasena (character)
70:Devasena (character)
979:
959:
857:Imperator Furiosa
849:
764:
728:
690:
645:
1049:
1032:
1016:
1013:
998:
997:
931:
892:
882:
848:
846:
841:
839:
834:
818:
815:
807:
760:
727:
725:
720:
718:
713:
689:
687:
682:
680:
675:
672:
644:
642:
637:
635:
630:
605:
602:
594:
579:
569:
550:
540:
522:
504:
474:
456:
426:
408:
378:
360:
330:
312:
282:
264:
227:
224:
216:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
57:
34:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1039:deletion review
1028:
1014:
1011:
993:
989:
929:
886:
876:
844:
842:
838:Numerounovedant
837:
835:
817:
811:
803:
800:
780:Amrapali Jewels
756:
723:
721:
717:Numerounovedant
716:
714:
685:
683:
679:Numerounovedant
678:
676:
666:
640:
638:
634:Numerounovedant
633:
631:
604:
598:
590:
587:
573:
563:
544:
534:
495:
479:
447:
431:
399:
383:
351:
335:
303:
287:
255:
239:
226:
220:
212:
209:
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
55:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1055:
1053:
1044:
1043:
1023:
1022:
1003:
981:
980:
960:
939:
938:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
809:
766:
765:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
596:
524:
523:
476:
475:
428:
427:
380:
379:
332:
331:
284:
283:
236:
235:
218:
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1054:
1042:
1040:
1036:
1031:
1025:
1024:
1021:
1018:
1017:
1007:
1004:
1002:
999:
996:
992:
986:
983:
982:
978:
974:
970:
966:
961:
958:
954:
950:
946:
941:
940:
937:
934:
932:
926:
923:
922:
913:
909:
905:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
893:
891:
890:
883:
881:
880:
873:
868:
862:
858:
854:
853:
852:
847:
840:
832:
827:
823:
822:
821:
816:
814:
808:
806:
798:
794:
789:
785:
781:
777:
776:
772:character in
771:
763:
759:
758:North America
754:
749:
731:
726:
719:
710:
709:
708:
704:
700:
695:
694:
693:
688:
681:
670:
665:
664:
663:
659:
655:
650:
649:
648:
643:
636:
628:
623:
619:
615:
610:
609:
608:
603:
601:
595:
593:
585:
584:
583:
580:
578:
577:
570:
568:
567:
560:
556:
555:
554:
551:
549:
548:
541:
539:
538:
531:
528:
527:
526:
525:
520:
516:
512:
508:
503:
499:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
477:
472:
468:
464:
460:
455:
451:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
429:
424:
420:
416:
412:
407:
403:
398:
394:
390:
386:
385:Bhallala Deva
382:
381:
376:
372:
368:
364:
359:
355:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
333:
328:
324:
320:
316:
311:
307:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
285:
280:
276:
272:
268:
263:
259:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
237:
233:
232:
231:
230:
225:
223:
217:
215:
207:
203:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1029:
1026:
1010:
1005:
994:
990:
984:
924:
888:
887:
878:
877:
871:
865:
830:
825:
812:
804:
793:Gabbar Singh
773:
599:
591:
575:
574:
565:
564:
546:
545:
536:
535:
529:
221:
213:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
56:Juliancolton
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
799:overnight.
163:free images
1006:Delete all
1035:talk page
969:• Gene93k
949:• Gene93k
241:Avanthika
37:talk page
1037:or in a
930:Varmapak
831:Devasena
805:Vensatry
770:Dhansika
592:Vensatry
481:Kattappa
214:Vensatry
122:View log
39:or in a
797:WP:FICT
788:Kushboo
784:Gautami
498:protect
493:history
450:protect
445:history
402:protect
397:history
354:protect
349:history
337:Shivudu
306:protect
301:history
258:protect
253:history
206:WP:FICT
169:WP refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
985:Delete
925:Delete
904:Aoba47
826:cannot
813:(talk)
775:Kabali
699:Aoba47
669:Aoba47
654:Aoba47
600:(talk)
502:delete
454:delete
406:delete
358:delete
310:delete
262:delete
222:(talk)
202:WP:GNG
141:Google
99:delete
50:delete
879:Krish
566:Krish
537:Krish
519:views
511:watch
507:links
471:views
463:watch
459:links
423:views
415:watch
411:links
375:views
367:watch
363:links
327:views
319:watch
315:links
279:views
271:watch
267:links
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
52:. –
16:<
1015:5969
1012:Onel
973:talk
953:talk
908:talk
889:Talk
859:and
845:Talk
724:Talk
703:talk
686:Talk
658:talk
641:Talk
627:here
622:here
620:and
618:here
614:This
576:Talk
559:Lost
547:Talk
530:KEEP
515:logs
489:talk
485:edit
467:logs
441:talk
437:edit
419:logs
393:talk
389:edit
371:logs
345:talk
341:edit
323:logs
297:talk
293:edit
275:logs
249:talk
245:edit
204:and
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
861:Nux
191:TWL
120:– (
975:)
967:.
955:)
947:.
910:)
884:|
755:.
705:)
660:)
571:|
542:|
517:|
513:|
509:|
505:|
500:|
496:|
491:|
487:|
469:|
465:|
461:|
457:|
452:|
448:|
443:|
439:|
421:|
417:|
413:|
409:|
404:|
400:|
395:|
391:|
373:|
369:|
365:|
361:|
356:|
352:|
347:|
343:|
325:|
321:|
317:|
313:|
308:|
304:|
299:|
295:|
277:|
273:|
269:|
265:|
260:|
256:|
251:|
247:|
208:.
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
60:|
995:B
991:I
971:(
951:(
906:(
801:—
701:(
671::
667:@
656:(
588:—
521:)
483:(
473:)
435:(
425:)
387:(
377:)
339:(
329:)
291:(
281:)
243:(
210:—
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.