- 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 The Vanishing Act; redirect the others. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Vanishing Act ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- 36 MM 3D ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Savita Barbie ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Monologues of a Sex Maniac ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The Vanishing Act, 36 MM 3D, Savita Barbie, and Monologues of a Sex Maniac are all "upcoming" films by Rupesh Paul. It appears that they may be in production or post-production, but none have been released yet. Each title was redirected to either Rupesh Paul or Rupesh Paul Productions Limited in accordance with WP:NOT YET (films). Although there are some mention of the titles in news media, the sources I can find only mention the director, titles, and Paul's intent to show the films at Cannes. (I find no mention of Rupesh Paul at the festival's web site, though.) Although redirect seems like an appropriate response, one or more editors (some are IP edits, so I'm not sure of the number) have recreated the speculative content, in most cases more than once. Either deletion or page-protection for the redirects would seem to be in order. Cnilep ( talk) 02:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Adding as nominator: Per WP:NFILMS, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable". Cnilep ( talk) 02:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cnilep ( talk) 02:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cnilep ( talk) 02:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Adding as opposor: The production house (Rupesh Paul Productions Limited is notable, so is not valid for deletion". Vaishali ( talk) 0302, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.217.120.12 ( talk)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redirect all to Rupesh Paul#New projects where per policy, his sourcable future plans can be spoken of even if lacking notability for a separate article. Once filming is confirmed for any of these, they can be recreated or undeleted, as they almost meet NFF (paragraph 3), but have not begun filming. For instance, we do have reliable sources speaking about anticipated filming of The Vanishing Act to begin soon for a fall release. [1] [2] [3] Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)STRUCK Schmidt, Michael Q.- Keep It surprises me that this has been nominated for deletion. At worst I'd think it would attract a notability tag (If anything). It will reappear again at a later date without any notability or nomination for deletion tag in about 6 months. I can guarantee that. So why delete something that will have to be put up again in the near future ??? Can't see any sense it that! ( Joecreation ( talk) 09:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC))
- Keep The Vanishing Act as a project whose production meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Temporarily redirect the others to Rupesh Paul#New projects where per policy, his sourcable future plans can be spoken of even if lacking notability for a separate article. Allow return one-by-one once notability for them is shown. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Question: I'm not disagreeing, but I don't fully understand the reference. By "NFF (paragraph 3)" I presume you mean, "unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines", since the rest of that paragraph is about deleting rather than keeping articles. If I had to guess I would paraphrase your assertion as, "The planned production of The Vanishing Act meets
WP:GNG because it has received attention from multiple newspapers." Is that right? Any road, that is a sensible argument for The Vanishing Act (I don't think it really applies to the others), and one that is much easier to see thanks to Schmidt's recent substantial edits.
Cnilep (
talk) 02:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, most of these
planned films do not have the independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. But by their being minimally sourcable,
policy tells us how and where they might be spoken of even if not in a separate article. The Vanishing Act is the exception and meets the caveats toward individual notability. Check
WP:FFCLARIFY. The director managed to get worldwide coverage of his plans for that one planned film, so we're okay... and for now we can redirect the others.
Schmidt,
Michael Q. 13:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, most of these
planned films do not have the independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. But by their being minimally sourcable,
policy tells us how and where they might be spoken of even if not in a separate article. The Vanishing Act is the exception and meets the caveats toward individual notability. Check
WP:FFCLARIFY. The director managed to get worldwide coverage of his plans for that one planned film, so we're okay... and for now we can redirect the others.
- Question: I'm not disagreeing, but I don't fully understand the reference. By "NFF (paragraph 3)" I presume you mean, "unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines", since the rest of that paragraph is about deleting rather than keeping articles. If I had to guess I would paraphrase your assertion as, "The planned production of The Vanishing Act meets
WP:GNG because it has received attention from multiple newspapers." Is that right? Any road, that is a sensible argument for The Vanishing Act (I don't think it really applies to the others), and one that is much easier to see thanks to Schmidt's recent substantial edits.
Cnilep (
talk) 02:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 15:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep/redirect per Schmidt, who makes a clear enough case. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep, as per my post at 09:22, 19 June 2014 Also for those interested, the trailer can be seen here [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joecreation ( talk • contribs)
- No need to repeat your vote, Joe. Only one to a customer. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Unless you are a voter in Chicago... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- They have hanging chads there too? Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:07, 23 June 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 keep The Vanishing Act; redirect the others. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 20:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- The Vanishing Act ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- 36 MM 3D ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Savita Barbie ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Monologues of a Sex Maniac ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The Vanishing Act, 36 MM 3D, Savita Barbie, and Monologues of a Sex Maniac are all "upcoming" films by Rupesh Paul. It appears that they may be in production or post-production, but none have been released yet. Each title was redirected to either Rupesh Paul or Rupesh Paul Productions Limited in accordance with WP:NOT YET (films). Although there are some mention of the titles in news media, the sources I can find only mention the director, titles, and Paul's intent to show the films at Cannes. (I find no mention of Rupesh Paul at the festival's web site, though.) Although redirect seems like an appropriate response, one or more editors (some are IP edits, so I'm not sure of the number) have recreated the speculative content, in most cases more than once. Either deletion or page-protection for the redirects would seem to be in order. Cnilep ( talk) 02:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Adding as nominator: Per WP:NFILMS, "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable". Cnilep ( talk) 02:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cnilep ( talk) 02:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cnilep ( talk) 02:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Adding as opposor: The production house (Rupesh Paul Productions Limited is notable, so is not valid for deletion". Vaishali ( talk) 0302, 12 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.217.120.12 ( talk)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redirect all to Rupesh Paul#New projects where per policy, his sourcable future plans can be spoken of even if lacking notability for a separate article. Once filming is confirmed for any of these, they can be recreated or undeleted, as they almost meet NFF (paragraph 3), but have not begun filming. For instance, we do have reliable sources speaking about anticipated filming of The Vanishing Act to begin soon for a fall release. [1] [2] [3] Schmidt, Michael Q. 10:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)STRUCK Schmidt, Michael Q.- Keep It surprises me that this has been nominated for deletion. At worst I'd think it would attract a notability tag (If anything). It will reappear again at a later date without any notability or nomination for deletion tag in about 6 months. I can guarantee that. So why delete something that will have to be put up again in the near future ??? Can't see any sense it that! ( Joecreation ( talk) 09:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC))
- Keep The Vanishing Act as a project whose production meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Temporarily redirect the others to Rupesh Paul#New projects where per policy, his sourcable future plans can be spoken of even if lacking notability for a separate article. Allow return one-by-one once notability for them is shown. Schmidt, Michael Q. 18:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Question: I'm not disagreeing, but I don't fully understand the reference. By "NFF (paragraph 3)" I presume you mean, "unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines", since the rest of that paragraph is about deleting rather than keeping articles. If I had to guess I would paraphrase your assertion as, "The planned production of The Vanishing Act meets
WP:GNG because it has received attention from multiple newspapers." Is that right? Any road, that is a sensible argument for The Vanishing Act (I don't think it really applies to the others), and one that is much easier to see thanks to Schmidt's recent substantial edits.
Cnilep (
talk) 02:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, most of these
planned films do not have the independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. But by their being minimally sourcable,
policy tells us how and where they might be spoken of even if not in a separate article. The Vanishing Act is the exception and meets the caveats toward individual notability. Check
WP:FFCLARIFY. The director managed to get worldwide coverage of his plans for that one planned film, so we're okay... and for now we can redirect the others.
Schmidt,
Michael Q. 13:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, most of these
planned films do not have the independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. But by their being minimally sourcable,
policy tells us how and where they might be spoken of even if not in a separate article. The Vanishing Act is the exception and meets the caveats toward individual notability. Check
WP:FFCLARIFY. The director managed to get worldwide coverage of his plans for that one planned film, so we're okay... and for now we can redirect the others.
- Question: I'm not disagreeing, but I don't fully understand the reference. By "NFF (paragraph 3)" I presume you mean, "unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines", since the rest of that paragraph is about deleting rather than keeping articles. If I had to guess I would paraphrase your assertion as, "The planned production of The Vanishing Act meets
WP:GNG because it has received attention from multiple newspapers." Is that right? Any road, that is a sensible argument for The Vanishing Act (I don't think it really applies to the others), and one that is much easier to see thanks to Schmidt's recent substantial edits.
Cnilep (
talk) 02:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 15:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep/redirect per Schmidt, who makes a clear enough case. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep, as per my post at 09:22, 19 June 2014 Also for those interested, the trailer can be seen here [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joecreation ( talk • contribs)
- No need to repeat your vote, Joe. Only one to a customer. Schmidt, Michael Q. 17:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Unless you are a voter in Chicago... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- They have hanging chads there too? Schmidt, Michael Q. 04:07, 23 June 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.