Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nisabdham (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Can be userfied if somebody wants to work on it once more sources exist.  Sandstein  10:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Nisabdham
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was previously deleted as a result of unambiguous consensus at Articles for deletion/Nisabdham. The creator of the article then re-created it, and I deleted it under speedy deletion criterion G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). The creator of the article then posted to my talk page to point out that the article now had references which were not there at the time of the deletion discussion, so I restored it, but moved it to draft space to give him or her a chance to improve it. He or she has now posted it back as an article again, and it has been nominated for speedy deletion under criterion G4 again. However, there are considerably more references than there were at the time of the previous deletion discussion, and since the deletion was largely due to lack of references, that makes a significant difference to what was discussed, and I do not think it qualifies for G4. I have therefore declined the speedy deletion. However, I do not think that the new references establish notability, so I am bringing it here to be discussed again. Most of the references are simply announcements that the people who are making the film have released a "teaser", in many cases actually providing the "teaser" to view. Many of the references are sites which do not appear to be significant reliable sources. None of them is substantial coverage in a reliable independent source. Multiple copies of what to all intents and purposes is the same reference, that one being publicity material released by the company producing the film, do not establish notability. Nor do the few other references provided. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing WP:NFF, same rationale as the last AfD. thoroughly documented a search for sources in the last AfD as well. To the extent that there are "new sources", they're all evidently links to the film's teaser trailer. I see no indication that the release of that trailer makes the production any more notable than it was a month ago, let alone to the point that it would pass NFF. To the extent that the new sources are the teaser trailer or reports that the teaser trailer has been released, I would argue that they fail the "independent" and "multiple sources" prongs of GNG as well.—/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  14:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC) \


 * Alts:
 * type:
 * filmmaker:
 * producer:
 * star:
 * star:
 * WP:INDAFD: "Nisabdham" "Michael Arun" "Ajay" "Abhinaya"


 * Send temporarily to draft space until this now completed film gets a touch more coverage. A good point to understand is that it is getting more coverage now than at last AFD, and not all are about the teaser. It's quite close now to meeting WP:NFF. IE: Times of India'Deccan Chronicle Article and refs could definitely benefit from cleanup as we wait.  Schmidt, ' Michael Q.'' 21:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Both "The Times of India" and "The Deccan Chronicle" are about one actor and not the film. The remaining refs all appear to be press releases and trailer teasers and nothing else. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk 21:54, 19 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.