Maamaankam (2018 film) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe page has enough reference to stay Yourmistake ( talk) 03:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• Endorse a simple review of the deletion log showed two distinct reasons why the article should be deleted: for being too promotional, and for being WP:TOOSOON. A non-promotional article upon the release of the movie may be a suitable article. SportingFlyer talk 08:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC) reply

*Endorse A version of the article is here I didn't really agree with the AFD nomination or any of the arguments, keep or delete, but they quoted guidelines in block capitals so I suppose they are to be taken seriously. Hence, the deletes have it. Thincat ( talk) 09:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Struck after seeing Cryptic's comment below. When the article was sent to AFD it was indeed not demonstrating notability for its production so the comments were appropriate for the state the article was in. I am withdrawing my unkind comments. Thincat ( talk) 10:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC) reply

• That's not even the same article. I've temp undeleted it, and for my own part, while I would've speedied the version nominated at AFD as spam, the article was much improved after most of the commentary there. — Cryptic 09:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Uncontroversial. Szzuk ( talk) 13:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I agree that a sensible solution is a non-promotional article after the release of the movie. Of course, a sufficient number of independent third party sources need to be used. And the sources should be in-depth articles. desmay ( talk) 16:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC) reply