Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thoppil Joppan


 * 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. userfy where? Applications to my talk page Spartaz Humbug! 11:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thoppil Joppan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unconfirmed and insufficient reliable sources. Production not yet started, too early to create an article about a rumoured film. See WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON. Charles Turing (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   It will rain    19:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   It will rain    19:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * alts per WP:BEFORE:
 * director:
 * lead:
 * lead:
 * lead:
 * music:
 * WP:INDAFD: "Thoppil Joppan" "Johny Antony" "Mammootty" "Andrea Jeremiah" "Deepti Sati" "Vidyasagar"


 * Userfy until we have confirmation of filming. The topic is getting coverage and Mammootty and Johny Antony projects almost always are notable. We simply need to wait a short while. And yes... whatever is returned will need to be better sourced to show an indisputable notability even to those who doubt.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 11:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Its not about notability, the film has not yet started production. If notability of actors and director and it coverage is considered for the criteria of "film" article creation, then there should have articles for upcoming Fast and Furious 8, Aquaman starring Jason Mamoa etc. The WP:ATD is meant for different case, there are other criteria for film articles. It definitely fails WP:NFF. Charles Turing (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Userfy per a future WP:POTENTIAL is not a "keep"... which is why I opined for userfication and not a keep. Sheesh.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 19:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is an unconfirmed film, it should be deleted. --Charles Turing (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong You may desire it gone, but our inclusion criteria are determined by policy and guideline, not by opinion. As an example of something "unconfirmed" that did not happen... the world did not end in 2012, but the topic was discussed in enough sources to be written of on Wikipedia. But before you get all apoplectic... and again, I am not promoting a keep. I simply feel that the sourcable work-in-progress film article can be userfied out of mainspace until notability criteria are met. Deletion is the last resort and only for violations of policy. Kind of simple really.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't relate 2012 phenomenon to a film, the world end was a universally discussed topic and has notability not like this unconfirmed rumoured film. Films has other criteria for inclusion. This article is promotional. No doubt. Still you want to userfy it, go on. Charles Turing (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing in search engines to show it passes notability criteria. Two brief mentions on News, zip on Newspapers, Books, Highbeams, or Highbeam. You could userfy, but what would be the point, there's so little there.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:39, 5 February 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.