Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vikramadithyan


 * 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   no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 21:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Vikramadithyan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This was on deletion but a logged off user took it off. Film has yet to film, just a cast list is listed. (plot says IDK even). Wgolf (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Okay I thought this was also a first film for people due to the line "first film of 2014 for blah blah" which in fact it was the first film of them for the year (odd thing to say on a page), still it just says it started production, not filming yet. Wgolf (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * delete per WP:NFF needs at a minimum significant third party sources indicating principle photography has begun. Redirect to director or incubate may also be acceptable. (locking to prevent premature recreation also advised)-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources such this one. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * hardly "substantial" at 4 two-sentence paragraphs. hardly "reliable" when it consists of "If reports are to be believed,"- typical promotional celebrity gossip. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  05:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Pardon TRPoD, but the mandate for "significant coverage" does not mean that a source MUST also be "substantial" in content. To quote the applicable guideline: "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." In considering Candleabracadabra's statement "substantial coverage in reliable independent sources", I think it more prudent to equate "substantial" to the number of sources available, and not quibble over the content of the one he chose to offer... as there are many more. I point this clarification out because their is no guideline nor policy requirement calling for "substantial content". Thanks.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:NFF "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. " and ROUTINE "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Planned coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it, is considered to be routine." Theres nothing about the coverage of this film that is not routine promotional publicity. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:ROUTINE refers to event notability, and while helpful for events, as a guideline for events it is often contradictory to WP:NF... the specific guideline set for film notability. In regards films, "routine" might be something trivial and banal such as "the film screened for two weeks and grossed XX dollars". If using the applicable guideline, if the overage allows us to extract without original research, the actors and plot and production details and public anticipation and past films, and is reported in sources reliable for such information in that part of the world (even if they are shorter than western news sources), it is not a routine report of a "event".  We'll certainly disagree, specially as not ALL sources do this, but enough cover the topic directly and in enough detail so that no original research is needed to extract the content and the article can then be thus accordingly improved over time and through regular editing to improve Wikipedia. If WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met, an article is allowable. However, rather than debating in efficacy or lack of a guideline intended for events rather than films, might you instead wish to discuss the possible merits of a merge and redirect as a consideration under editing policy? Thanks.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, what is trivial and banal is the coverage "Our next guest is X who is going to start filming in Y's upcoming film! Let's see a promotional clip!!!" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
 * Ah... if the guest interview included information about the film, then we have the required further coverage of production. And such is still not judged under "event" notability criteria. We really need to consider the guideline set for films, not for events. Wide media attention... some brief and some lengthy... is exactly as required for policy-mandated verifiability of included content. Heck, even with the MOST notable topics we can find the occasional one or two line speedy comments in some media. We consider it all, not just a few minor ones. But thanks,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:INDAFD: Vikramadithyan Lal Jose Dulquer Salmaan Unni Mukundan Namitha Pramod Anoop Menon Lena Kumar


 * Keep per coverage in multiple sources to meet the notability requirements set by WP:NFF (paragraph 3). To partly agree with the nominator, the article needs a lot of work to meet WP:MOSFILM and be properly encyclopedic, but we rarely delete topics determinable as notable simply because they need a little regular editorial attention.  Not believing a flat-out deletion to be best, I am willing to consider arguments of how a merge and redirect of this sourcable film topic to director Lal Jose might somehow serve the project far better than simply improving this article.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 07:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Okay now I'm iffy about this. Not sure if this should be deleted or not - I could withdraw this but rather not, just rather see what happens, whatever happens, well happens! Wgolf (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep: Cursory research shows this film from an acclaimed director is notable, the article simply needs additional improvement.  I haven't been at AFD much lately but between this and things like Articles for deletion/Un'amore e una vendetta I'd say we're getting a bit lazy.--Milowent • hasspoken  22:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, I think we need to separate out "reliable sources" from "promotional material". Yes, there is lots of coverage of this film, but the vast majority of it seems to be gossipy promotional hype.  What looks impressive when you look at the number of sources is a lot less impressive when you look at the quality of those sources.  That said, I'm only going "weak" as there might be better quality sources in Malayalam that I can't access.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:30, 11 May 2014 (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.