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 keep. ( non-admin closure) Yash! 01:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Achcham Enbadhu Madamaiyada

Achcham Enbadhu Madamaiyada (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

No Originality , No Image , Duplicate and Not Enough information , Not Important Satya durga reddy ( talk) 09:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  11:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015 ^TALK  11:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Alts:

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

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

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

And through WP:INDAFD: "Achcham Enbadhu Madamaiyada" "Gautham Menon" "Photon Kathaas" "Sattendru Maaruthu Vaanilai"

• SOLID Keep per having the ongoing wide coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Sorry nominator, but please read WP:Deletion Policy and WP:Notability (films). Not to offend, but we do not measure film topic notability by its theme not being "original", its article lacking an image, the film being made by same director alongside another simultaneously in two languages (an issue for perhaps suggesting a merge, not a deletion), it being a decent start class article lacking information, and definitely not by a personal opinion that the film may be "not important". Instead, we judge a project confirmed as filming by its production having enough coverage in multiple reliable sources to meet inclusion criteria. As this topic has such sourcing available (used or not), we editors need to separate ourselves from any and all personal opinion and use a fair and equitable application of policy and guideline. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply

The only coverage appears to be WP:ROUTINE pre release promotional blurbage. What is significant coverage? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

You ask "what is significant coverage?" Well... per WP:SIGCOV, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Sorry, but in my own looking I find more-than-trivial coverage about casting and crewing... actors and nusic and cinemtaographers, etc... speaking of the film's productions. Finding such for a project confirmed as filming, we have a meeting of WP:NFF (paragraph 3). While more-than-trivial is the guideline requirement, WP:SUBSTANTIAL is not a policy nor guideline mandate, and for some 2 years of direct and pertinent information about this project's ongoing plans has moved beyond being "rourtine" WP:DOGBITESMAN blurbs. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep – The film is currently under production: [1], [2]. — Vensatry _(ping) 10:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, it has begun production, but where is there anything other than WP:ROUTINE pre release promotional blurbage? [ [3]] for instance is merely a rehashed PR blurb that the promotional trailer will be released. I don't see the the encyclopedic value in Wikipedia becoming a free media publicity vector -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Authored and detailed news reports from reliable sources even if short, do not fall under "routine" WP:DOGBITESMAN blurbs. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

There is no "authored" and particularly no "authored and detailed" - these are merely regurgitated contents from the press kit. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure if WP:ROUTINE is relevant here. Given the number of sources which indicate the film's status (as currently being filmed), it clearly meets WP:NFF. — Vensatry _(ping) 16:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• move to draft space till the film is released - the coverage is merely WP:ROUTINE rehash of promotional materials. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

Per WP:NFF (paragraph 3) we do not have to userfy all forward-looking film articles, as authored and detailed news reports from reliable sources even if short, do not fall under the term "routine". Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It appears the film has met two good criteria: (1) It has received significant coverage from multiple different independent reliable secondary sources, as successfully documented, by MichaelQSchmidt, above. (2) The film has already begun production and is in the filming stage, per documentation by Vensatry, above. If only one of those two were met, we could have argumentation to disappear this page from existence -- but with both criteria more than capably met, it should be kept. Thank you, — Cirt ( talk) 09:29, 20 October 2015 (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.