Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CandyFlip (film)


 * 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). Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

CandyFlip (film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails Notability (films) guidelines. Unable to find any substantial coverage in reliable sources, except the sole link cited as reference. utcursch &#124; talk 15:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  15:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * In looking further:
 * writer:
 * director:
 * producer:
 * producer:
 * star:
 * lead:
 * lead:
 * lead:
 * lead:
 * and through WP:INDAFD: "CandyFlip" "Shanawaz Nelikunnil" "Shanawaz NK" "Balasubramanyam TC" "Prashant Prakash" "Prakash Raj" "Kalki Koechlin" "Gulshan Devaiah" "Valeriya Polyanychko"
 * and through WP:INDAFD: "CandyFlip" "Shanawaz Nelikunnil" "Shanawaz NK" "Balasubramanyam TC" "Prashant Prakash" "Prakash Raj" "Kalki Koechlin" "Gulshan Devaiah" "Valeriya Polyanychko"


 * Keep. In not being dismissive, the TImes of India article is quite in-depth and informative about this completed film, and in looking further, we have other sources available with which this stub can be expanded and sourced. WP:NFis met. No need to delete what can be improved through regulasr editing.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 20:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Which "other sources" are you referring to? I performed an extensive search with both "CandyFlip" and "Candy Flip" before initiating this AfD. Ignoring random blogs (which are not WP:RS), I found exactly 4 news stories which mention this movie:
 * The Times of India article linked above.
 * The article is about another topic, and contains a passing mention that the film is being shot.
 * An interview; contains exactly one line about the film: "There’s an indie called Candy Flip set in a shack in Goa that I’m also doing."
 * Another interview that contains only one line about the film: "Candyflip is also in the pipeline."
 * I don't think an unreleased indie film passes WP:GNG when there is exactly one news article (from 2014) that covers it substantially. utcursch &#124; talk 21:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You offer no proof that it was not released, but then I admittedly do not have access to Hindi offline hardcopy news sources. And even if not-yet-released, we may then instead look to WP:NFF (paragraoh 3) and decide if the lengthy Times of India article speaks directly and in detail about the film. I feel it does. You feel it does not. Fine to disagree. And a note, blogs are not all automatically unusable.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The article itself says that the film is "currently in the post production phase". The only references available say it's not released. I understand that some blog posts can be acceptable sources, but I couldn't find any in this case. As for WP:NFF, here is a direct quote: "...should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." I don't know of any notability guidelines that consider one news article as sufficient criteria. utcursch &#124; talk 06:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, fine to disagree, but I find that the lengthy article in India's most major newspaper Times of India does speak specifically and in detail about the film's production... enough so to meet the WP:NFF (paragraph 3) guide about the film's production. Perhaps Indian editors with ability to search fr and offer online or hardcopy non-English sources will weigh in. WIth relistings, we'll have the time to wait.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 17:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vipinhari  &#124;&#124;  talk  16:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep perhaps even if not confidently as the one article may be enough at best to source. SwisterTwister   talk  03:52, 27 March 2016 (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.