Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Housefull 3


 * 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   merge to Housefull 2. Stifle (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Housefull 3

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Filming has been postponed till June 2015. Skr15081997 (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skr15081997 (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Production hiatus is not grounds for deletion, if it already has significant coverage. If anything, that there is a reliable source about the hiatus is further proof of notability.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 06:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NFF says "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun." Thanks.--Skr15081997 (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah okay, I was not aware of that piece of guideline and will remember. Merge/redirect to Housefull 2 and update with the hiatus status then. No prejudice to split when shooting starts.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 09:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, but he's not not 100% correct.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:INDAFD Housefull 3 Housefull 3


 * Comment I appreciate 's viewpoint, but he inadvertently misquoted the guideline which instructs "...should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". Generally is not an absolute and editors may also consider alternatives to deletion that preserve information.
 * Rather than an all or nothing approach, we need to determine if this film, due to its predecessor's notability and production's coverage of this one by such as Times of India, Indian Express, Bollywood Hungama, NDTV, Zee News, Glam Sham, India West, and so many others meets or exceeds notability guidelines so as to be considered one of those rare but reasonable exceptions. Such exceptions are not against policy nor guideline. If kept, the article needs expansion and sourcing per the many available sources, and if deleted it could always be written of and sourced in Housefull (2010 film) and/or Housefull 2. Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect Filming date is confirmed. Himanshugarg06 (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -I agree with that "Generally" doesn't equate to "Absolutely" and we here taking into consideration the subject and their predecessors and production house coverage that exceeds GNG, should consider alternatives to deletion that preserve the information. The film has received consistent coverage in reliable sources that allows it to meet, if not WP:NFF, -surely NEVENT and NFF EXCEPTION. Events are very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources. India mainstream reputable newspapers, -Times of India -10,700 hits for Housefull 3, -Indian Express -5,020, -The Hindu, -914, -India-West, -leading Indian newspaper in USA has 1,980 hits, Hindi newpapers, -that very few are available online has 590 hits.
 * A subject that does not meet Wikipedia's one guideline, may meet many others. One should remember that the only purpose of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is to improve the encyclopedia and are written to provide guidance to the community's widely agreed norms and ..should always be applied using reason and common sense. Well, to disregard -subject's eligibility to meet gng, nevent and nff exceptions -deleting this now and re-creating it in few months (June?) to comply NFF would constitute nothing but Bureaucratic approach (..rules are not the purpose of the community.) and will be a complete waste of time and effort. Anupmehra  - Let's talk!  19:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * keep per Anupmehra. Ch  an  de r  07:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect Filming not to start till June 2015. As per WP:NFF. Articles for deletion/Happy New Year (2013 film) was also redirected, though there was much talk about it. Redtigerxyz  Talk 09:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting, your argument led to me to the extremely well-sourced and existing article Happy New Year (2013 film).  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The article was converted from a redirect to a film, once the Filming began As per WP:NFF (this part, part of my argument, was missed) The same should be done with this article. Redtigerxyz  Talk 18:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not missed, but exceptions are allowed. Determining if we have one is why we have these discussions.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:21, 9 February 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.