Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guru of Sex

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 merge to Osho. I've only carried out the redirect, and leave the rest to editorial discretion. lifebaka++ 17:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guru of Sex

Appears to fail future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can be found to show that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Userfy~~. The quality and content of the article is such that it would be a pity to delete it outright. However, this does appear to fail WP:NFF. I can't find any sources more recent than those cited in the article. No evidence that filming is in progress, or even that the project is still a going concern. PC78 (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Osho per others below. PC78 (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is clearly evident that there has been significant discussion in multiple secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. The fact that the production caused a controversy and response from Osho centres is also notable. Cirt (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair to stay that it's in production. It's merely being developed, and it's been controversial like Toussaint (film), which is comfortably merged with production not beginning right away. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Toussaint (film) has not been comfortably merged, but instead was removed in its entirety from the article it was merged into. Cirt (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I put it at Danny Glover#Planned directorial debut with a note in that article's popular culture section. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but with respect to this particular article, the same type of thing may happen, and the material would then likely be gone. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Merge to Osho. Well... i did find Sannyas World: In the News: Osho movie: "The Guru of Sex" by Gorach" and an article about Kingsley's attiude about sex in films ThaaIndian News: Ben Kingsley interview. I added them to the article's ELs. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 04:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One link is from August 2007 and the other link is actually referring to Elegy (film). There's no indication that filming has begun, so it could be merged to Osho until we can verify that an actual film will result. No information is lost; there just won't be an illusion of a potentially full-fledged film article based on plans that never go through. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote. Agree with your reasoning. If it is merged, nothing is lost. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this reasoning is not always sound, because sometimes when things are merged the material is then removed outright from the article it was merged into. Cirt (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~It is in production (as I understand it)~~. The article though does seem to have some tone/wording issues that may need to be addressed. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)~~~~[reply]

Merge to a "Film adaptation" section at Osho since filming is not verified to have begun. Guru of Sex is not even listed at IMDb, and there is no such role identified for Ben Kingsley, who is supposedly in the lead. If production doesn't take place, we don't have the assurance of a full-fledged film article -- cast, production, reception, etc, leaving us with mere intents. Recreate if filming is verified to have begun. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ben Kingsley role appears to be well cited in the article. PC78 (talk) 13:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but this was June 2007 casting. While I don't care for IMDb, I find it strange that there is no mention of this project. Based on what I've seen with films coming and going with the film industry, this may have been one that was never able to get "legs". The most recent mention of this film was that the script was being written, not "in production" as the Wikipedia article claimed, and numerous films often get stuck on the script issue. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May not matter at all but, I'm reasonably sure the Ben Kingsley reference I remember from the BBC (the television news program they run in the morning) was from this calendar year. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how old the sources are, his involvement in the project appears to be a documented fact. PC78 (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and it's not a fact to exclude. There is usually coverage for when a major actor joins a film, but there isn't usually coverage about an actor's continued involvement if the film is going nowhere. Thus, it's hard to determine if there is still involvement. For example, Frankie Machine (film) has DeNiro attached in November 2005, but the film hasn't been made since. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, we can't get a look at the contracts that go on. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it fails NFF regardless. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But of course, hence my Userfy/Merge comment above. ;) PC78 (talk) 17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. Turns out I was finding stuff about the wrong film and I can't seem to verify the Ben Kingsley reference (though I remember definitely seeing something on the BBC news about it) as more than rumour that he will be in it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Erik. Cliff smith ^talk 16:14, 5 August 2008 (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.