- 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 merge to Ra.One. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Economics of Ra.One ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no reason why a film needs a separate article for details on its budget and box office performance Areaseven ( talk) 00:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCar GT 00:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Merge with Ra.One, it seems well sourced minus a Daily Mail ref. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Merge with Ra.One per Lady Lotus. — Vensatry (Ping) 14:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
KeepMerge I have to say I am flabbergasted by the sheer content and depth of the article. I don't think a full merger with Ra.One is possible. Maybe a selective merger (that would require huge effort). Article has reliable refs. It talks so much about the controversies surrounding prior to and after its releases and touches on many fringe topics. Notability becomes an issue therefore. I am unsure between merge and keep. However, deleting it should not be an option. Harsh (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Merge selective content and delete the rest which is WP:UNDUE.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Merge to Ra.One. This is a case where you have lot of sources, but the subject has very little encyclopedic value. Salih (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment If we go by the merge logic, then should articles
Reception of Ra.One,
Marketing of Ra.One,
Post-production of Ra.One,
Cast of Ra.One and
Principal photography of Ra.One be also merged?
Harsh
(talk)
17:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know why we are so much obsessed with economics. Don't you think the "Box Office" and "Commercial analysis" sections which are discussed in this article actually belong to two of the five sub pages that are listed above? — Vensatry (Ping) 18:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why does one movie need to have separate articles for production, marketing, reception, and box-office when bigger and better films such as
The Avengers has all of that in one page? -
Areaseven (
talk)
05:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Bigger and better has nothing to do with article numbers. Its the content size that matters. Btw, Ra.One is 156 mins and Avengers is 142 mins. But as i said, thats irrelevant. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C}
08:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- The problem with the Ra.One article is that it simply has too much information. Having all these separate articles on its production, reception, etc. makes readers think Wikipedia is advertising the film. The best possible solution is to trim everything down and keep it to one page like every other film article. Also, your rationale of the film being 156 minutes long is irrelevant, as running time has nothing to do with the subject matter being discussed. -
Areaseven (
talk)
10:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- True! Having this many sub-pages is nothing but a case of
WP:CFORK. Probably separate mergers need to be carried out for other sub-pages too. —
Vensatry
(Ping)
10:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is NOT a
WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Note that Ra.One is already a good article. Selective merging i.e, trimming every sub-page, is a huge task because what's to be merged to main article and what's to be ignored requires consensus. Even if a selective merger is undertaken, the main article will become even more longer, because so many sub-pages are to be merged.
I recommend a keep for every article - Reception of Ra.One, Marketing of Ra.One, Post-production of Ra.One, Cast of Ra.One and Principal photography of Ra.One. Harsh (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC) - Just like we have two articles for
Yosemite National Park#History and
History of the Yosemite area.
Harsh
(talk)
16:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you devote some time reading the policy it will be quite clear that some of the articles clearly violate WP:CFORK. There is absolutely no need to go for
a separate article for casting as it has got nothing more to explain than what has been already explained in the parent article. The
Principal photography of Ra.One clearly doesn't belong here as it reads pretty much like an advert. Further, "Cinematography" and "Action" have got no relevance with principal photography. The Marketing and Reception articles contain a lot of
unwanted and unrelated stuff which again doesn't make way for warranting a stand-alone article. Also, is it a requirement for GAs to have multiple sub-pages treating the same subject? The parent article's size is just 34.5 k chars. We have many FAs/GAs which are 2-3 times bigger than this. So merging is not an issue. —
Vensatry
(Ping)
07:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think the consensus apparently is for a selective merger of what's salvageable in Economics of Ra.One and a deletion of Cast of Ra.One, Principal photography of Ra.One, Reception of Ra.One, Marketing of Ra.One, and Post-production of Ra.One. The other articles can be bundled and nominated after this discussion is closed. Harsh (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you devote some time reading the policy it will be quite clear that some of the articles clearly violate WP:CFORK. There is absolutely no need to go for
a separate article for casting as it has got nothing more to explain than what has been already explained in the parent article. The
Principal photography of Ra.One clearly doesn't belong here as it reads pretty much like an advert. Further, "Cinematography" and "Action" have got no relevance with principal photography. The Marketing and Reception articles contain a lot of
unwanted and unrelated stuff which again doesn't make way for warranting a stand-alone article. Also, is it a requirement for GAs to have multiple sub-pages treating the same subject? The parent article's size is just 34.5 k chars. We have many FAs/GAs which are 2-3 times bigger than this. So merging is not an issue. —
Vensatry
(Ping)
07:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is NOT a
WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Note that Ra.One is already a good article. Selective merging i.e, trimming every sub-page, is a huge task because what's to be merged to main article and what's to be ignored requires consensus. Even if a selective merger is undertaken, the main article will become even more longer, because so many sub-pages are to be merged.
- True! Having this many sub-pages is nothing but a case of
WP:CFORK. Probably separate mergers need to be carried out for other sub-pages too. —
Vensatry
(Ping)
10:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- The problem with the Ra.One article is that it simply has too much information. Having all these separate articles on its production, reception, etc. makes readers think Wikipedia is advertising the film. The best possible solution is to trim everything down and keep it to one page like every other film article. Also, your rationale of the film being 156 minutes long is irrelevant, as running time has nothing to do with the subject matter being discussed. -
Areaseven (
talk)
10:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Bigger and better has nothing to do with article numbers. Its the content size that matters. Btw, Ra.One is 156 mins and Avengers is 142 mins. But as i said, thats irrelevant. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C}
08:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Too big to merge in the already lengthy article. Nominator's rationale "there is no reason" is vague and they finding it so is just another case of WP:IDL. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 18:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 merge to Ra.One. ( non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
- Economics of Ra.One ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no reason why a film needs a separate article for details on its budget and box office performance Areaseven ( talk) 00:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCar GT 00:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Merge with Ra.One, it seems well sourced minus a Daily Mail ref. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Merge with Ra.One per Lady Lotus. — Vensatry (Ping) 14:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
KeepMerge I have to say I am flabbergasted by the sheer content and depth of the article. I don't think a full merger with Ra.One is possible. Maybe a selective merger (that would require huge effort). Article has reliable refs. It talks so much about the controversies surrounding prior to and after its releases and touches on many fringe topics. Notability becomes an issue therefore. I am unsure between merge and keep. However, deleting it should not be an option. Harsh (talk) 14:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Merge selective content and delete the rest which is WP:UNDUE.-- Redtigerxyz Talk 18:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Merge to Ra.One. This is a case where you have lot of sources, but the subject has very little encyclopedic value. Salih (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment If we go by the merge logic, then should articles
Reception of Ra.One,
Marketing of Ra.One,
Post-production of Ra.One,
Cast of Ra.One and
Principal photography of Ra.One be also merged?
Harsh
(talk)
17:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know why we are so much obsessed with economics. Don't you think the "Box Office" and "Commercial analysis" sections which are discussed in this article actually belong to two of the five sub pages that are listed above? — Vensatry (Ping) 18:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Why does one movie need to have separate articles for production, marketing, reception, and box-office when bigger and better films such as
The Avengers has all of that in one page? -
Areaseven (
talk)
05:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Bigger and better has nothing to do with article numbers. Its the content size that matters. Btw, Ra.One is 156 mins and Avengers is 142 mins. But as i said, thats irrelevant. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C}
08:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- The problem with the Ra.One article is that it simply has too much information. Having all these separate articles on its production, reception, etc. makes readers think Wikipedia is advertising the film. The best possible solution is to trim everything down and keep it to one page like every other film article. Also, your rationale of the film being 156 minutes long is irrelevant, as running time has nothing to do with the subject matter being discussed. -
Areaseven (
talk)
10:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- True! Having this many sub-pages is nothing but a case of
WP:CFORK. Probably separate mergers need to be carried out for other sub-pages too. —
Vensatry
(Ping)
10:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is NOT a
WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Note that Ra.One is already a good article. Selective merging i.e, trimming every sub-page, is a huge task because what's to be merged to main article and what's to be ignored requires consensus. Even if a selective merger is undertaken, the main article will become even more longer, because so many sub-pages are to be merged.
I recommend a keep for every article - Reception of Ra.One, Marketing of Ra.One, Post-production of Ra.One, Cast of Ra.One and Principal photography of Ra.One. Harsh (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC) - Just like we have two articles for
Yosemite National Park#History and
History of the Yosemite area.
Harsh
(talk)
16:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you devote some time reading the policy it will be quite clear that some of the articles clearly violate WP:CFORK. There is absolutely no need to go for
a separate article for casting as it has got nothing more to explain than what has been already explained in the parent article. The
Principal photography of Ra.One clearly doesn't belong here as it reads pretty much like an advert. Further, "Cinematography" and "Action" have got no relevance with principal photography. The Marketing and Reception articles contain a lot of
unwanted and unrelated stuff which again doesn't make way for warranting a stand-alone article. Also, is it a requirement for GAs to have multiple sub-pages treating the same subject? The parent article's size is just 34.5 k chars. We have many FAs/GAs which are 2-3 times bigger than this. So merging is not an issue. —
Vensatry
(Ping)
07:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think the consensus apparently is for a selective merger of what's salvageable in Economics of Ra.One and a deletion of Cast of Ra.One, Principal photography of Ra.One, Reception of Ra.One, Marketing of Ra.One, and Post-production of Ra.One. The other articles can be bundled and nominated after this discussion is closed. Harsh (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you devote some time reading the policy it will be quite clear that some of the articles clearly violate WP:CFORK. There is absolutely no need to go for
a separate article for casting as it has got nothing more to explain than what has been already explained in the parent article. The
Principal photography of Ra.One clearly doesn't belong here as it reads pretty much like an advert. Further, "Cinematography" and "Action" have got no relevance with principal photography. The Marketing and Reception articles contain a lot of
unwanted and unrelated stuff which again doesn't make way for warranting a stand-alone article. Also, is it a requirement for GAs to have multiple sub-pages treating the same subject? The parent article's size is just 34.5 k chars. We have many FAs/GAs which are 2-3 times bigger than this. So merging is not an issue. —
Vensatry
(Ping)
07:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is NOT a
WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Note that Ra.One is already a good article. Selective merging i.e, trimming every sub-page, is a huge task because what's to be merged to main article and what's to be ignored requires consensus. Even if a selective merger is undertaken, the main article will become even more longer, because so many sub-pages are to be merged.
- True! Having this many sub-pages is nothing but a case of
WP:CFORK. Probably separate mergers need to be carried out for other sub-pages too. —
Vensatry
(Ping)
10:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- The problem with the Ra.One article is that it simply has too much information. Having all these separate articles on its production, reception, etc. makes readers think Wikipedia is advertising the film. The best possible solution is to trim everything down and keep it to one page like every other film article. Also, your rationale of the film being 156 minutes long is irrelevant, as running time has nothing to do with the subject matter being discussed. -
Areaseven (
talk)
10:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Bigger and better has nothing to do with article numbers. Its the content size that matters. Btw, Ra.One is 156 mins and Avengers is 142 mins. But as i said, thats irrelevant. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C}
08:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Too big to merge in the already lengthy article. Nominator's rationale "there is no reason" is vague and they finding it so is just another case of WP:IDL. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 18:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- 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.