Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YOUNG MALANG


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn. MichaelQSchmidt has improved the article, film has released, AFD nominator has withdrawn his nomination. (non-admin closure) Tito ☸ Dutta 13:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

YOUNG MALANG

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced article about a future, non-notable film. WP:NOTCRYSTAL Benboy00 (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment A (not sure if reliable) source has been added, and a release date after now, but before the end of this AfD process has been added. This means WP:NOTCRYSTAL no longer applies. However, I still believe this subject to be non-notable. Also, I find it interesting that a previous article, with the same title, was deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Malang). The title of this current article seems capitalised to avoid recreating a deleted page. This is slightly suspicious. If this article is kept, then it will almost certainly be moved to that article. Benboy00 (talk) 11:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * KEEP: Apparently written by a newcomer, article is in terrible shape (yikes)... but this soon-to-release film meets WP:GNG through coverage in multiple sources. They need to be added, but that would be a matter for regular editing and not deletion. Anotyher point is that maybe if User: Vigyani had done a little before or even sent the earlier film article to AFd instead of tagging it as speedy, we might have a better article and NOT a deleition discussion now.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 21:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Production:
 * Primary cast:
 * Primary cast:
 * Primary cast:
 * Primary cast:
 * Primary cast:


 * Comment When this film is released (presumably on the 20th of september), I will withdraw the motion, but can people please bear in mind WP:NOTCRYSTAL and NF. Try to refrain from creating articles first just so you can have the credit, or so that the name is reserved, or any other of a list of understandable but bad reasons. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty much my thoughts inre WP:NFF were because it is a completed film with an imminent screening date and enough coverage. When a release date is so very close, we do not need to "wait" to do what is right. I can only hope the newcomer contributor realizes the necessity for sourcing when writing any article. I've asked that the original title Young Malang be undeleted due to it have more addressable content and context. The two histories can then be merged. Schmidt,  Michael Q. 21:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason I am waiting is because of what it says (rightly so) on the page NF, namely that "there is no "sure thing" production". If the film does release on the 20th, then all is well and this article will become appropriate. However, if there is some unforseen difficulty and the film is *not* released, then this article will remain inappropriate for wikipedia. I appreciate that the date is very close, but I still think that the rules should be followed (at least in this case), as even if the proposal is not withdrawn and the film is released, there will still be 5 days until the closure of this AfD, which is plenty of time to withdraw. Benboy00 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I can understand your wanting to wait two days, but guidelines are not "rules"... they are guides " best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Through consensus and common practice we quite often allow articles when the film is slated to release in a very short time. Point here being is that proper research shows it's
 * A) completed,
 * B) is receiving coverage to meet GNG and NF, and
 * C) is slated to screen in two days...
 * thus the cautions of the NFF "guide" are addressed. Sure, the production house holding all copies might burn down in the next two days and all copies would be lost, but presuming the worst for a completed film slated to screen in a couple days feels just a little like inappropriate and unsourced crystal-balling, and runs contrary to that nutshell that heads each and every guideline page.  It's not as if we are speaking about a speculated film set for filming or release at some approximate date in 2014 or 2015.  You are welcome to stand your ground until the snow begins to fall and this becomes a speedy keep.
 * HOWEVER, and as you are ("rightly so") depending on WP:NFF, please note its third paragraph stating "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 " (my emphasis) . This film is completed and as an film slated for release we may indeed have an article as its production is itself notable through notability guidelines.   Best  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not quite sure why you are so insistent that this AfD be prematurely terminated. What harm will be caused by waiting another day or two? I appreciate that you are an experienced editor, and I welcome your expertise, but I see no problem with waiting until the film has been released to withdraw an AfD. In the NFF guidelines, it suggests that there are two categories of film: Films that have begun shooting, and films that have been released. This film is clearly in the former category, as it has begun shooting, but it has not been released. My reading of the guideline is that it doesnt matter whether a film has finished shooting or not, merely whether it has been released. I am presuming nothing, and indeed, to remove my proposal would be to presume that everything will go according to plan. I personally think it will go to plan, but why prematurely withdraw? I would have no problem standing my ground until it became a speedy keep, but this is not what I intend to do (unless an admin is particularly fast with the speedy keeps). As I said before, as soon as the film is released, and it is verified by sources, I will withdraw the AfD (a polite prod on my talk page would be helpful though, as I am currently monitoring a lot of different things). As someone recently said to me (although in my opinion the usage was incorrect on that occassion), "There's no need to rush anyone to close an AfD, ever". Benboy00 (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * We do not continue an unnecessary process simply for the sake of continuing the processes, and ending an unnecessary process is not at all "premature". That an AFD nomination might be graciously withdrawn by its nominator when an error in the nomination is politely pointed out is perfectly within the suggested guidelines for AFD, and does not hinder improving this encyclopedia. . But as I am going to undelete the original version that was (perhaps incorrectly) speedied late last August, and place it with intact history into my own userspace to address its then-addressable issues before returning it to article space, this entire discussion is becoming moot. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 00:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that this last post, and to a lesser extent the one before, is somewhat uncivil, especially the last sentence, which (I feel) is entirely unnecessary. I apologise if what I said has irritated you in some way, and stress that this was not the intention. All I wish is to make the encyclopedia better, and hope that we can work this out. I understand that you feel this nomination was in error, and if the nomination was made tommorrow (assuming that the movie does come out) I believe that you would be correct. I dont think that it is in error, at the moment, and you have made your disagreement with this point of view clear, both here and on my talk page. I respect that, and I would ask that you also respect my opinion, whether you think it wrong or not. As I said before, I am perfectly happy to withdraw when the film has come out which, all things going to plan, will be tommorrow. I hope you are successful with your improving of the previous incarnation of this article, and wish you luck with Project Film. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have quite intentionally remained polite and civil in explaining the proper application of WP:NFF and in underscoring that as a guideline its last paragraph is just as important as its earlier under WP:GNG, and wish to thank you for remaining civil in sharing your opinions and interpretations.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 02:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Update: Despite the length of the above discussion, I feel the project is far better served by my putting my words into action. I thus took the time to address this article's issues with tone and sourcing. With the "keep" I opined above, I also think this improved version should be moved to the proper film title Young Malang after the expected keep. Best,  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts on this page. Benboy00 (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I also concur on the rename if this article survives its AfD. May as well kill two birds with one stone here. Betty Logan (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Withdraw As the film has now been released, as discussed earlier I would like to withdraw this AfD. Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly meets WP:NFF. Principal photography has started (if not concluded) and there have been regular updates in the Indian media in regards to the film's production status. If this were a Hollywood movie it wouldn't be up for deletion. Betty Logan (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2013 (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.