Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asal


 * 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   delete/userfy. Need to come to a decision on this - the consensus of the discussion is that this fails the notability guideline for future films. There is a suggestion of a specific user to userfy this to, but I'll await a specific request for userfication and then restore it there with the accompanying history. Please notify the author. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Asal
Discussion to run until at least 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparently fails WP:NFF; recent sources indicate that filming will not commence until March 2009. PC78 (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not filming yet, then it is too much forecasting for the Wikipedia. --Bejnar (talk) 07:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or userfy A director walking out on a project tends to be a not so common event and it gets quite some media coverage. If the creator or someone else who's interested can touch this up so it is better referenced, I believe it would not violate NFF and could be kept. - Mgm|(talk) 14:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NFF requires a film to have started filming; that isn't the case here. PC78 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Why restrict covering notable productions to those that are already filming? The whole point is that the production itself is notable enough to cover. - Mgm|(talk) 10:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the point is that the film may not happen. PC78 (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP What? Why? The film will start shooting soon and has been officially announced by the producers of the film. There is no forcasting being done here. There are sources provided. You can check them too. Please wait some time so we can add more information along with sources provide. Also the film has been announced that it will happen, no one has yet said it won't happen. When they do, then you can go ahead and tag the article for deletion. But for now the film is said to be official. Do not delete this page! --Eelam StyleZ (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you are forecasting; the film has not yet begun shooting, and unless you can see into the future you don't know for certain that it will - all the sources you can come up with won't change that. Anything can happen in the next month; the film could be put on hold, for instance. PC78 (talk) 13:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The notability guideline for future films recommends that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is for very practical reasons. Budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. Indeed, Gautham Menon's departure from the project is just one example of how a film might be disrupted by events beyond the filmmakers' control. We see many projects fall by the wayside at the last minute, so application of the guideline is the only way in which we can ensure that this place doesn't get clogged with stubby articles about films which were never made and thus would ultimately fail the general notability guideline. It should also never be assumed that because a film is likely to be reasonably high-profile, with major stars attached, that it will be immune to the usual pitfalls which can affect these productions, especially in the current climate. Projects can be put on hold at the last minute while a director tackles another film (e.g. Spielberg's Lincoln), we had the potential actors' strike, and look at how many productions were postponed, even shelved indefinitely, because of the 2007-2008 Writers Guild of America strike. An example of just such a project might be the Justice League film, which was put on hold at the last minute, or Jurassic Park IV, which is still in development hell and which many would consider a no-brainer for a speedy greenlight (it was actually supposed to be released in 2005). In accordance with the guideline, the article can be recreated without prejudice if and when principal photography is finally confirmed to have begun. Until then, the relevant information can sit comfortably at a designated parent article, where it can be viewed in the correct context, or userfied. Steve  T • C 13:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Gautham Menon's departure from the project happened before the film was officially announced. It was re-announced publicly after that incident by the producer Prabhu Ganesan that director Saran would direct the film starring actor Ajith Kumar would be in the lead role. The film may not have started filming but it is currently in its pre-production stage. This article is also not a stub. Like an event article, this article will be further expanded as more news is made. How about considering deletion about a month or so from today? It's way too early to consider this page be deleted.--Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the final consensus is that the article should really be deleted, then let it be userfied instead.--Eelam StyleZ (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the notability guidelines for future films; the brief postponement of this project shows that films are never a guarantee. I have no problem with userfication or recreation on a later date if it is verified that filming has begun. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 13:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Userfy to author User:Universal Hero so he may have the whole thing right at hand when principal filming begins. No sense tossing out his work when it might be welcomed back in just a few weeks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:04, 11 February 2009 (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.