Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallelooya


 * 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 Speedy Keep per nominator's withdrawl in the face of easy article improvements  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hallelooya

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The issue of notability. It has no primary sources. Nair sp ec ht ''' (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Request withdrawn in the light of evidence. Please remove the NfD tag.   Nair sp ec ht ''' (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  17:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  17:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The article says it is an "upcoming" film. So it's far too early to have a Wikipedia page, if it's not even released and lacks either reviews or press coverage. The only citation is Facebook. To my mind this is a strong Delete without prejudice of recreation if the film makes a significant impact on its release and gains notability in secondary sources. Pupsbunch (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. What next?  Nair sp ec ht ''' (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What is "next" is WP:BEFORE and looking for sources before deciding a poor article is somehow non-notable.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I see. But the article itself does not have these sources listed. The creator can be notified, perhaps. Thanks for WP:BEFORE.  Nair sp ec ht ''' (talk) 07:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome . Check out WP:DELS and study the guide WP:NEXIST to learn that (as worrisome as it is for some and as ridiculous as it seems) articles actually do not have to BE themselves sourced, just so long as the content itself is verifiable through searches. That's what BEFORE is all about... and notifying the creator and/or tagging the article to get concerns addressed is usually the best way to begin improvements. Better for the project to encourage addressing instances through regular editing, rather than requesting a flat out deletion for being not yet done. Not a trout, just advice.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 21:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Every day you learn new things. Will check these out. Thanks, . Cheers,  Nair sp ec ht ''' (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Alts:
 * type:
 * director:
 * star:
 * star:
 * & WP:INDAFD: "Hallelooya" "Sudhi Anna" "Narain" "Meghna Raj"


 * Keep this stub per it being a completed film slated for release in less than two weeks and actually having coverage to meet WP:NF: New Indian Express (1), New Indian Express (2), Deccan Chrnicle, The Hindu, and more.  The author needs to better understand how to write and source his work as article definitely needs work, yes... but addressable issues are rarely reason for the deletion of arguable notable topics., specially as notability is found through sources and not their being used as citations.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Update for and  and anyone else:  What was in good faith though mistakenly sent to AFD had style issues, BUT those issues were not valid deletion rationales and were actually quite easy easy to address through regular editing. IE:  what was sent to AFD and what was corrected afterwards. So here's the situation in a nutshell... the film is to release at the end of March... a mere matter of days. If it were already released, the massive amount of availble coverage (used or not) would have the topic be notable enough for an article.  Since it is days from release, we may instead look to WP:NFF (paragraph 3) to see that that same level of production coverage for a completed-yet-unreleased film, has the topic merit an article.  Well guys?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:40, 22 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.