Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Night Out


 * 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.  Sandstein  10:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

One Night Out

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable upcoming film, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM. GSS (talk |c|em ) 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS  (talk |c|em ) 09:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, the one source in the article is a simple database listing. It previously also cited IMDb as a source. All but the first few edits by this user relate to this film. – Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 19:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, The film is yet to be launched and the production house is not notable delete per WP:NFF.-- D Big X ray  22:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment could not find any reviews so it looks like this is on the way out. However, if after it is released, it receives at least 2 reviews, preferably more, in reliable sources such as press it can be recreated and G4 will not apply in that case, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * G4 only apply if the two versions are "substantially identical" and also do we count reviews by newspaper equal to nationally known critics e.g. Film Critics Circle of India as sugested by WP:NFILM ...and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics? Thank you GSS (talk |c|em ) 05:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment two full length reviews in national or regional newspapers that are considered reliable sources count as a pass of WP:GNG, which is enough for inclusion irrespective of WP:NFILM, although more reviews would be preferable, thanks  Atlantic306 (talk) 10:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How? GNG required "Significant coverage" that addresses the topic directly and in detail but reviews don't give that coverage they basically talk about reviewers personal experience. GSS (talk |c|em ) 16:52, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Full Reviews count as significant coverage that address the topic directly and in detail by an independent professional reviewer who is often an expert in the field if they are in reliable sources for films, books, albums, songs, video games, cars, products and many other topics.If you do not realise that it is your knowledge of consensus and policy that is lacking Atlantic306 (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well as I said above there is a difference between coverage and sharing own experience, anyways this is not the right place for this debate so I will ping you once I post this at ICTF or somewhere else. Thank you GSS (talk |c|em ) 03:45, 16 May 2018 (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.