Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kammarasambhavam


 * 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 per WP:NFF. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Kammarasambhavam

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Film has not begun principal filming. Per WP:NFF, "[f]ilms that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles . . . ."  Rebb  ing   18:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  20:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * alts:
 * director:
 * star:
 * star:
 * WP:INDAFD: Kammarasambhavam Kamara Sambhavam Rathish Ambat Dileep Siddarth
 * star:
 * WP:INDAFD: Kammarasambhavam Kamara Sambhavam Rathish Ambat Dileep Siddarth

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete The good news is that the topic of this planned film where the two stars will depict octogenarians has plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG and the srticle is easily expandable and sourcable, but the bad news is that we do not yet have confirmation of it filming, so WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is failed making this one simply TOO SOON. We can allow a ressurrection when we do.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as too soon obviously, no context and simply nothing else basically for a better acceptable article. SwisterTwister   talk  05:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as there is no much notability and its too early to be stand-on as solid article on Wikipedia.--Helper V1 (talk) 18:10, 14 April 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.