Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chehere (2015 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chehere (2015 film)[edit]

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

Not notable. Just another movie. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's taking me a pretty long while but it looks like a lot of coverage is under the spelling "Chehre". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've hit a wall and I'm using the special Google search that WP:INDIA created for India newspaper coverage. I've asked them to look for sources just to make sure that I haven't missed anything. So far I'm not really seeing much, so I'm leaning towards this getting userfied if anyone's up for that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources looks good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.137.167 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alt:(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)

Producer:(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)

Actor:(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)

Keep either now or after release in August. Flming is complete and release is pending. And for a completed and unreleased film, it is getting the coverage [1][2][3] to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. This film has not yet been released.--Rpclod (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rpclod: I suggest you read WP:NFF and pay close attention to paragraph 3. We do not need to wait for a release as long as filming has begun and the topic has coverage to meet WP:GNG. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...which supports a delete. Unreleased films "should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." I see no notability regarding the production itself. WP is not a crystal ball.--Rpclod (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...sorry for your inability to see or accept it, but your quote actually supports a keep, as the film's planning, writing, crewing, casting and music and such (its production) has the coverage showing it as meeting WP:GNG, and so thus meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Had filming not begun or if its production not received coverage, I could agree with you. But if a completed-yet-unreleased film has the requisite coverage, our inclusion criteria are met. So, and supported by policy and guideline, I gladly disagree. And thanks for sharing your opinion about CBALL, but the article is not "a collection of unverifiable speculation", and so that policy specifically allows inclusion and explains how, because information cited to reliable sources is not a staring into a "crystal ball". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MQS & these found on HighBeam - [4][5][6]. –Davey2010^Talk 00:01, 27 July 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.