Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salmon 3D


 * 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. I reassure the nominator that I have taken note of their response to every comment, but they should bear WP:BLUDGEON in mind. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Salmon 3D

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Future film whose production does not meet WP:NFF due to lack of independent coverage in reliable sources. Citations are announcements, interviews and non-RS sources which do not establish notability. No scheduled release date, and nothing significant found in WP:BEFORE. Ab207 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - A multilingual film that has made adequate noises before its release. The film has proved its notability in all languages meeting WP:NFF, but the makers are yet to announce its release date. Rajeshbieee (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Rajeshbieee (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * "adequate noises before its release" is not criteria to meet NFF, the production receiving independent coverage from reliable sources per WP:GNG is. Can you pick WP:THREE such sources which can establish notability. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Draftify Does not yet meet WP:NFF. BOVINEBOY 2008 15:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep has sourcing, seems to be notable. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Would be helpful if you explain how this meets WP:NFF; Merely having sources is not enough, the production should've received coverage from independent and reliable sources. None of the sources cited here meet that criteria. -- Ab207 (talk) 05:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Giving this discussion another round, especially for the "keep" voters who have yet to respond to the nominator's rebuttals. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 13:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep More credible sources have been added to the article.Superstars8547 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like WP:REFBOMBING of routine coverage of lyrical videos (Eg. the ones published around 14 May 21), press releases and announcements which are not GNG worthy sources. Please pick your WP:THREE which provide independent, significant, and reliable coverage on production. -- Ab207 (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep Meets notability guidelines PastaMonk 17:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You might have to explain the "how" for your !vote to carry any weight. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. fails WP:NFILM. Inspect61 (talk) 17:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable, has reliable sources too. Timetraveller80 (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG needs "significant coverage" in "reliable sources" that are "independent of the subject." Being a reliable source is necessary but not sufficient condition. -- Ab207 (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2022 (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.