Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drishyam(2015)

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. Nakon 03:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drishyam(2015)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:NOTFILM KunalForYou ^Contribs ^Talk 13:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Upon looking up Drishyam (2015 film) I got Papanasam (film). Just wanted to point this out really quick. Wgolf (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Drishyam (Hindi film) or similar - Drishyam as a film (originally produced in the language Malayalam) is already notable. This version in question is a remake in a more widespread language, Hindi. As Wgolf points out there is another version, Papanasam (film), which is in Tamil, and there's also Drushyam in Telugu. I suppose there's a reasonable question to be asked: does notability transfer from one work to another? I think it does in this case since the other two versions are being made on the success of Drishyam. They are inextricably linked. I do wish, however, there were a way to merge all three articles into the main Drishyam article, but that's a different discussion entirely. Anyhow, there are ample sources [1][2][3] and principal photography appears to have begun.[4] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, remakes fall under WP:NOTINHERITED. They might be able to give notability to the original film, but they can't inherit the main film's notability. I don't think I've ever seen an article kept on the basis that it was a remake of something. It'd be interesting if this could be kept on that basis, but I think that it's ultimately going to have to be based on this specific remake's coverage in RS. Since filming has started that's likely going to be enough to keep the article, but I don't think that notability is inherited by something being a remake. I think that the reason for this is that it kind of opens the door for films that are "inspired by" or "taken from" earlier films and that makes it a bit too inclusive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be so bad for newer films where the original work is under copyright and the remake is endorsed by the original copyright holders, but this would be problematic in cases where the original film is in the public domain and someone makes a remake of the film. In other words, if a high school student created a remake of a public domain film then by this concept that student film would be notable, which would be took inclusive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points, Tokyo and I'll keep these in mind for the future. I guess what seems unique about this, is that they are multiple remakes within a year or so of the original. But your point is well received. I think there is sufficient RS coverage that makes this remake qualify as notable under GNG. The one thing that makes me a little hesitant to say that the film satisfies WP:NOTFILM is this one line in WP:NFF: Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. The sources I've been able to find say (paraphrased) "principal photography will begin in two weeks", but I'm having trouble finding a source that says, (wishfully paraphrased) "Yeppers, filming has commenced, here's a photo of Ajay Devgan stuffing his face at the craft services table." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've amended my !vote. I'm still good on keeping, but I think we should observe MichaelQSchmidt's suggestion that we rename the article to Drishyam (Hindi film) or some similar phrasing. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article doesn't contain even a single source. 182.69.59.5 (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — 182.69.59.5 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not accurate. They're just erroneously presented in the External links section. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alts-

Language:(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)

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)

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

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

And WP:INDAFD: Drishyam (Hindi film) Nishikant Kamat, Drishyam Ajay Devgn, Drishyam Tabu, Drishyam Shriya Saran, Drishyam Rajat Kapoor, Drishyam Panorama Studios, Drishyam Drishyam remake

Keep per meeting WP:NF through WP:NRVE for this Hindi remake of the 2013 Malayalam film. Currently used sources need reformatting, but they are there. To differentiate and make searches easier, I suggest a move to Drishyam (Hindi film) to separate now and forever from the earlier Drishyam (Malayalam film). There are plenty more sources available with properly set search parameters.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — kikichugirl ^oh hello! 01:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Kunalforyou & Tokyogirl79 & Wgolf: If you look at the article, you'll see improvements to confirm filming has commenced. Since WP:BEFORE shows the Hindi film version as having extensive coverage AND since the project IS confirmed as filming, Notability per WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is met. Opinions? Keeps now? Withdrawal? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I never did vote earlier as I was just pointing out the page issue (I was going to do a redirect from 2015 film so the afd wouldn't get confused but couldn't do it) anyway yeah keep. Wgolf (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets notability with coverage and there is evidence that filming has started. Cowlibob (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per Cowlibob —Vensatry _(ping) 08:12, 16 April 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.