Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Columbus (2015 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) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Columbus (2015 film)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable film. No references, little more than a cast list. KDS 4444 Talk  16:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 17:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

*Delete; fails both WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. /wia  /tlk  17:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Well I don't know how I missed the article in the Hindu. Embarrassing. I'm striking this vote. Apologies to, and thanks for the tips on searching for referencing surrounding Indian-related content, of which I was not aware. Thanks, /wia   /tlk  13:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Does not have any Notability besides a possible promotion.  A dog 104  Talk to me 19:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep; expanded slightly with sources to back film up.  A dog 104  Talk to me 03:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * director:
 * music: , r,
 * cast:
 * cast:
 * cast:
 * language:
 * & best with trying WP:INDAFD: Columbus (film) "Columbus, review" "Ramesh Samal"


 * KEEP per the poor article nominated just 21 minutes after creation about a released film with reviews and coverage to meet WP:NF. Sorry, , and ... I know some folks look at present state when gauging topics, and a very poor state does not inspire confidence... but I personaly find it always best to search first before opining on a topic. Point here is that I quickly found a rather lengthy review in The Hindu. There's more, so I will myself give it some wikilove later today. And to ... yes it was your contribution, but it was not helpful to simply remove information that could have lead others to the sources I found. Cheers.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * MichaelQSchmidt...but the only words on the page is "Telugu movie released in october 2015 This is beautiful love story of discovering of love", which quite literally tells me nothing about the subject at all besides its a love story. There's no references, links, or anything to back it up. If you're a non-user coming across this page, you would only learn that a 2015 film is a romance, nothing more. If you want this to stay, add more information and references. I will change it to keep if there is more information (cast, director, plot, production, etc.) and credible references.  A dog 104  Talk to me 01:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The nominator gave the author a whole amazing 21 minutes, and then the author himself removed content out of pique. We judge a topic's notability by its actual sourcability, NOT by the how poorly the information is presented, and being unsourced does not mean it cannot be improved, nor by thinking that it will never be improved.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that he had a cast list before deleting it, but that still doesn't help provide information about the movies verifiability. You also have to figure out what happens to Columbus telugu 2015 movie as it is a recreation of the article Columbus (2015 film) from the author.  A dog 104  Talk to me 01:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Diligence finds verifiability. Unintentionally mistreating new editors does not. Read WP:WIP. Read WP:SEP. Read WP:IMPROVE. Read WP:NPOSSIBLE. Read WP:COMMUNITY. Read WP:PRESERVE. And the new article will go because it duplicates an exiting improvable topic. Heck, as an admin I'd be happy to delete it myself once THIS one is expanded and sourced. Thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I was saying...I will switch it to keep and cross out the delete once its sourced and expanded like I vaguely explained at the end of my first response. I'm not trying to aggressively delete this either, I'm only suggesting deletion with the little information we have as of now. If the article is expanded and has a source (which someone can do now in the days before consensus), then I will switch my vote as you are allowed to.  A dog 104  Talk to me 02:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay... so you do not care that the topic already meets WP:NF through sources available and so will retain your "delete" simply because it needs work... but if someone else does the work with the many sources available you are willing then to change your "vote"? AFD is not supposed to force improvements... but it often does. Thank you.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not forcing anyone to change my vote or opinion; and even maybe when you were responding to what I've said, maybe I was looking up information to help with the film article to change my own vote. Besides I still don't see what is notable about one sentence; and I've been here 2-3 months tops, so help me so if I haven't identified Wikipedia's customs since there is a VAST amount of rules and guidelines I've yet to learn about. And here, changed my opinion and fixed the article to where I'm comfortable with saying Keep (see above).  A dog 104  Talk to me 03:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts... and while I completely agree that the nominated article was very poorly written, I have learned through my few years of editing and a few articles I improved, that we have an often overlooked or ignored part of guideline telling us that topic notability is determined through the topic (well written or not) being sourcable to meet WP:NF, and not to be determined by how poorly an article might be written. Best,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (That I gave it 21 minutes was lenient, as WP:NPP suggests that 15 is enough opportunity for an editor to add at least one reliable independent reference to an article— if I were to start from the back of the new pages list, I would be 4,966 days behind, which is a little slow, so I try to work from the other end while also allowing a grace period. Which I did.  And so please do not upbraid me for following what I read and understood as the behavioral norm here, as I have nothing else to go by— if 21 minutes in not appropriate, then perhaps you should suggest a change at WP:NPP.  But please don't belittle me for following the posted rules, as, Christ, what else am I supposed to do with a unsourced new article on yet another Indian film with a single sentence for its content?? The future, by the way, holds another ten thousand such articles...  The people of India are prolific film makers, not all of the resulting films qualifying as notable.)  KDS 4444  Talk  10:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC))
 * Not picking on you, but speed kills and makes more work for others. I can appreciate your zest to improve Wikipedia, but NPP advises caution when it instructs "Do not be too hasty to nominate contributions by new editors for deletion if the content is marginal. If you are uncertain, leave the page unpatrolled, and another volunteer can review it later."
 * Also, the New Page Patroller checklist does not say to rush something to deletion, when it tells us "New page patrolling is intended to catch problems with new articles, and either fix those problems or tag the article for future cleanup by other editors."
 * Yes, India is a prolific film-making country, and yes, a lot of films made there do not qualify for inclusion herein... but please... under WP:NPPNICE you might try to be be a bit less "so certain" of your first opinion if you accept that searches for sources for Indian films is an ongoing problem. Just as WP:INDAFD tells us, "Google News' does not crawl and index Indian newspaper articles properly," and suggests less reliance (if any is actually performed) on Google News for source searches. I have personally found Indian English Newspaper Custom Search Engine and Indian Newspapers Search Engine (for all Indian languages) to be exemplary for finding suitable sources.
 * And please that, 10-15 minutes suggested before tagging an article from a new editor with a speedy is a suggestion, not a rule. And was the suggestion followed that new contributors be notified of concerns to thus be given the opportunity to bring forth the sources I (and almost anyone else) could have found with just a little due diligence, before you then decided to speedy their work?
 * The "rules" governing AFD are found at Deletion policy where the "rules" give us the proper deletion criteria and offer us suitable alternatives...and over at WP:AFD we are instructed us to follow deletion policy and follow due diligence before nominating.
 * Sorry to lecture, as folks with New Page Patrol zeal sometimes forget that we have other rules and guides on how and why and when to send something to AFD. I know your intentions are good, but the results today have nor born out your "being certain". I hope you continue your looking out for the encyclopedia, and simply suggest you follow WP:NPPNICE and WP:NPPCHK and WP:BEFORE more closely and perhaps be a bit less hasty and slow your roll just a bit.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 12:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Keep As per Schmidt, it seems to be notable and just didn't have enough sources, so it should just be expanded - not deleted. RailwayScientist (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2015 (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.