Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casanovva

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. With the comment that the part of WP:NFF that says ...should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." refers only to films that have begun production. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casanovva[edit]

Delete was tagged speedy for no context, but there is sufficient context to figure out what this article claims it's about. It's still WP:CRYSTAL and not WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —94.196.67.124 (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I have done a bit of research, and found that with the "other" spelling of "Casanova" (one "v"), and including the star Mohanlal, there is enough per WP:GNG to meet the requirements of WP:NFF through a Google search. I have sourced the article to show a bit of this coverage. It will benefit from further expansion and sourcing, certainly. I suggest that the name be changed after this AfD to bettr reflect the one most often used by English sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Per Google news search: Principal filming to begin in 3 weeks per Galatta, March 6 2009, "Arya's Casanova begins" (...has been scheduled to start rolling by the first week of April) and Screen, March 13 2009, "Tamil star Arya makes Malayalam debut" (..shoot will commence on April 5 in Vienna). With respects to the nom, with a diligent search under its alternate spelling, coverage meets and exceeds requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NFF. Filming is now imminent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm going to stick with WP:NFF here. Principal photography has not yet begun, therefore this film should not have its own article. I wouldn't be opposed to recreating the article after sources have confirmed that principal photography has begun, however. Matt (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR and the guideline instruction "best used with common sense and the occasional exception" seem quite cogently to apply here. We're talking about filming beginning in a matter of days, for goodness sake... not some date next year. HOWEVER, and that aside, the artilce indeed passes WP:NFF because of A) its exceptional coverage in RS that surpass the GNG, and B) the fact that it is sourced as being the costliest Malayalam film ever made to date. Even with filming not beginning for a few nore days, its already a keeper. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense that a film that hasn't even been made cannot have any kind of assertion of notability, nor can the fact that one can, by drawing boundaries narrowly enough, come up with meaningless superlatives imparts any real notability. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Film has not yet started principal photography and fails WP:NFF.--Sloane (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It must be noted in quoting WP:NFF that it also specifically states "...should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." It is notable per guideline. And even ignoring WP:N and WP:GNG, will Wiki self-destruct if we use "common sense" (as all guidelines instruct) and wait the three weeks for filming to begin? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8Delete per nom and others: WP:NFF & [WP:N]]. Eusebeus (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Mr. Schmidt's input and observations. The article meets WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is sourced with reliable sources, and the subject is notable. It’s not all that complicated, really. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pre-production publicity says nothing about post-production impact, or, indeed, whether the film will even be made. Notable, despite much hand-waving, has not been established, even if the other hurdles are cleared. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per latest reports, the film has been dropped. Refer Sify news. This article should be removed. --Sreejith K (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2010 (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.