Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adi Kapyare Kootamani 2

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 redirect to Adi Kapyare Kootamani#Sequel. The keep arguments don't cite any policy-based reasons to keep. There's a majority arguing to delete or redirect; not such a big majority that I would normally feel comfortable declaring a consensus, but the weakness of the keep arguments pushes it over the line. If/when sources appear which meet our notability requirements for films, it's easy enough to undo the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Kapyare Kootamani 2[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Film does not appear to have begun principal filming; under WP:NFF, "[f]ilms that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles . . . ." Rebb ing 18:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The film is not yet announced or pre-production is not yet started. JackTracker (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

expanded WP:BEFORE:

abbreviated:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

director:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

star:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

studio:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

producer:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INDAFD: Adi Kapyare Kootamani 2 AKK-2 John Varghese Dhyan Sreenivasan Namitha Pramod Aju Varghese Popcorn Entertainments Vijay Babu

Redirect for now to the sourced mention in Adi Kapyare Kootamani#Sequel for it was announced in December 2015 that the project was to begin filming in March 2016, and in January 2016 the sequel was again spoken of. A boiler-plated nomination statement does not address reasonable alternatives. We can WP:REFUND this one when filming is confirmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no need for my nomination to address WP:ATD: alternatives to deletion are for pages that are notable but have significant issues like poor writing, verifiability or NPOV issues, or ongoing content disputes. Rebb ing 15:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No offense, but You are reaching an incorrect conclusion as ATDs are possible options for any sourcable topics (notable or not) that have any sort of issue... and this one simply being TOO SOON is definitely an addressable issue. What exists here is a topic that is sourcable-yet-premature, and sorry... but a repeatedly boiler-plating nomination statements implies a knee-jerk response and possible lack of BEFORE, specially as policy states "sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect" as doing so as a reasonable alternative would have prevented this AFD in the first place. As the article is currently unsuitable, in your "Before" did you ever even find or consider Adi Kapyare Kootamani#Sequel as a logical and reasonable redirect target for this sourcable topic-not-yet-ready? Yes? No? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I considered redirecting to Adi Kapyare Kootamani § Sequel, but AfD seemed the better course of action as I believed (and believe) this to be both too soon and not likely to be notable once released. In retrospect, redirection would have been simpler. Also, there's no need to apologize: your remarks are perfectly civil, and, as I chose to bring this nomination, I am responsible to stand for whatever criticism it may deserve. Rebb ing 22:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again no offense, but your prediction that a film by and starring Indian notables which is already receiving coverage as "not likely to be notable once released" is unfounded and completely unhelpful to an AFD discussion... but then again, my own thoughts may themselves be influenced by my being an Admin or by my 8 years on board and 60,000 edits or by my being a coordinator of project film... so no need to take my own experience or advice into consideration. Your own courtesy is much appreciated. Be well. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The makers of the film had already announced about the release and the cast of the film and its too said that it is the sequel of Adi Kapyare Kootamani. More reference , on Times Of India --Aleena Ahmed (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Film is clearly notable. I have added 3 more reliable references, they are from Malayala Manorama English online, another from International Business Times india and already existing one from The Times of India. Nicky mathew (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This film has no sources saying that the production is under way or any other "new" news about the pre-production. If you observe the available sources here and here, both dated 28 December 2015, they are just follow-ups to the apparent success of the original film. The film has only been announced, which does not make it notable for Wikipedia as per WP:NF. Cheers, Nairspecht (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nairspecht: Yes, not notable enough "yet" for a separate article, but multiple sources speaking about the topic of this planned film have those plans meet WP:GNG and even though occasion rare exceptions are sometimes allowed, a redirect is quite suitable and supported by guideline and policy. Just sayin'. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelQSchmidt So what do we do? Keep the article or delete it, for now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nairspecht (talk • contribs) 13:42, 9 April 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Nairspecht: I believe a redirect to Adi Kapyare Kootamani#Sequel will preserve its history until a recreation is merited and will send readers to the one place where for now it makes sense for plans of a sequel to be spoken about in context to the parent film. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article for now.--Aleena Ahmed (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC) (struck second keep vote)[reply]

@Aleena Ahmed: Sorry, but filming has not yet been confirmed, and I had to strike the preceding as we allow only one keep per editor.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the film is clearly notable and can stand on and as a single solid article.--Helper V1 (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Adi_Kapyare_Kootamani#Sequel per WP:NFF until reliable sources indicate that production has begun. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.