Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramayana (film)


 * 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   keep. As pointed out, individual notability overrules NFF, which is what I believe this discussion focuses on. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ramayana (film)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Future film that has not started principal photography, so it does not pass WP:NFF. Clubmarx (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article is premature by many months. Fails WP:NFF. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Changed my opinion... see below
 * keep. Just check Google News (Just type Keanu Reeves ram or Disney Hindu or  Gary Oldman or Chuck Russell, etc) You will find there is lot of News about it and recently Disney announced as well that they are planning to produced the film, I'm certain very soon you will find imdb entry about this film.Indian (talk) 10:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per WP:NFF, the pre-production drama has been going on for too long. Can be recreated when the movie is at principal photography stage. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 01:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sigh. Goes to prove that you shouldn't believe everything on Wikipedia. Now that the correct title has been identified and the article moved to it, sourcing doesn't seem a problem and it appears to pass GNG, so NFF is moot. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 01:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFF. Textbook case. That is a good guideline, and we should follow it. Ray  Talk 02:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep per changes made by MQS, and per results of a Google News search, which produces plenty of references to verify the information in the article. I am happy to change my vote; thank you MQS. Delete per WP:MQS, a new policy that says "if it's about a movie and MQS can't make it a keep it's not a keep." Drmies (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NFF  Chzz  ►  04:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The subject of the article has received bery substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The correct title should be Hanuman (film), but there is already an article at that name so it will have to be disambiguated. That it hasn't happened yet is clear, but the casting and media coverage make it notable already. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and change the name to Hanuman (2010 film) or change the other to Hanuman (animated film) or disambiguate. My earlier opinion above was predictated on a search under the current name Ramayana, which limited search results. COM's subsequent search and discovery of the alternate name has convinced me that enough pre-shoot coverage allows consideration of an article about this film in some manner... even if a later merge to Kenau's page or the director's. Very recently unearthed coverage in Economic Times, Rediff, Contact Music, and many others show that this is one of exceptions to WP:NFF that guideline allows. We'll be hearing more... not less. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that in this case the buzz outweighs the fact that principal photography has yet to start. pablo hablo. 12:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keanu Reeves as a monkey god? Halfway believeable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly not, according to the sources he won't be playing the monkey. pablo hablo. 18:25, 19 September 2009 (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.