Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baby (2015 Tamil film)

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The result was Speedy keep nomination withdrawn--Savonneux (talk) 06:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baby (2015 Tamil film)[edit]

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

No sourcing. No evidence of notability. Almost entirely a plot summary. WP:NFILM Savonneux (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 17:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator--Savonneux (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALTS

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

WP:INDAFD: "Baby 2015 film" "Baby Tamil Movie" "D Suresh" "Manoj Bharathiraja" "Shira Gaarg"

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

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

actress:(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)

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

Keep it was an easy task to find sources to meet WP:NF and begin work to improve the improvable, as that is the way we build an encyclopedia to serve its reader. Others are welcome to join in. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And a note to @Savonneux: topic notability does not have to be "found" in an article, as evidence of notability is found through a diligent search for sources and, if found, notability may then be presumed. Lacking sources in a sourcable topic, is a reason to fix or perhaps tag with {{sources}}, but not a reason to delete. And that an article by a newcomer has problematic format, we have reason to then tag a notable topic for editorial attention (WP:ATD-T), but again a long plot is not a valid deletion rationale. And if you had found the same number of sources discussing this new film as did I and brought it here anyway, please remember, Afd is not to force cleanup.

And to new contributor Logeshbabueee, please accept our apologies. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:19, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never even seen page WP:INDAFD. I searched Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL which brings up eleventy billion hits for a Hindi film entirely unrelated to this. Being almost entirely plot summary with no sources at all is enough to bring it up for discussion WP:NOTPLOT. You went the extra mile, grats. Don't assume a lack of GF on my part or ignorance of WP:BEFORE--Savonneux (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Findsources set by an AFD template is not always the best. I like to employ a little google-foo and stretch beyond its often cursory offering. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this as a speedy keep.--Savonneux (talk) 06:40, 22 August 2015 (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.