Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heropanti 2

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 no consensus verging on keep. Daniel (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heropanti 2[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Heropanti 2 This is an unreleased film that does not satisfy film notability for films that have been produced and are awaiting release. Such movies are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability. This draft or article is about an unreleased film. The film notability guideline identifies three stages in the production cycle for films:

1. Planned films that have not begun production (principal photography or animation). These planned films do not satisfy film notability.
2. Films that are confirmed by reliable sources to have begun production, but have not been released. These films are only notable if production itself satisfies general notability in terms of significant coverage. Mere mention of the start of production does not satisfy notability.
3. Films that have been released, whose notability is determined primarily by reception and reviews.

This film page must be evaluated based on general notability of production. Category:AfC comment templates An article should speak for itself and explain why it is notable. This article only says that production took place. An analysis of the sources shows that most of them are press releases, mostly announcing people associated with the film.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	Bollywood Hungama	Press release announcing selection of writer	No		Yes	No
2	Bollywood Hungama	Press release announcing selection of director	No		Yes	No
3	Bollywood Hungama	Press release announcing one of the stars	No		Yes	No
4	Bollywood Hungama	Press release announcing the leading lady	No		Yes	No
5	Bollywood Hungama	Press release announcing the release date	No		Yes	No
6	Times of India	Photos of stars	Yes	No	No	Yes
7	Bollywood Hungama	Press release announcing completion of principal photography	No	No	Yes	No
8	Times of India	Report of stars returning to Mumbia after shoot.	No	No	Not usually	No
9	Bollywood Hungama	Press release announcing musical appointments	No	No	Yes	No
10	Bollywood Humana	Press release concerning various personnel.	No	No	Yes	No
11	FirstPost	Press release concerning music	No	No	Yes	No

Two of them refer to the completion of production, but one of them is another press release, and the other says, in the Times of India, which is not a reliable sources, that the stars went home after the shoot. The fact that the film is in the can does not mean that putting it in the can was notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and salt until May 2022. There isn't enough to show any notability for this film yet. Can be discussed in the Heropanti article until reviews and screenings are out. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 22:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The threshold for a future film is commencement of principle photography. This one had many false starts, but now, not only is principle photography commenced, but is finished, and the release date set.

Robert is taking a very hard reading of the WP:GNG, which is often appropriate, but not always.

WP:NFF from its beginning has provided and exception to the GNG, or certainly permission to reading the GNG more gently. And there are some very good reasons for it to do so. One is that Wikipedia readers expect coverage of eagerly anticipated new films, to the point that if the article is missing, readers will spontaneously become new editors and write the missing article. The reaction to seek SALTing is simple evidence that this is what’s happening. The ghits are huge, there is excitement, and it will continue, increasingly, until about a week after release. NFF is not at all like NSPORTS or the variety of SNGs that encourage permastubs, but it addresses a short period, between commitment of the bulk of the budget, and commercial release. If, after release, quality sources don’t immediately arise, then it can be deleted (NFF doesn’t apply post-release). However, this is rare, as big budget, multi-star films that tank still receive coverage. NFF has an excellent track record for enduring articles.

It is most undesirable to force it back to draftspace. Draftspace is not meant to be a shadow encyclopedia. New editors should not be told to go to draftspace to read what they expect to read.

If there weren’t a flurry of sources every week, then it could be better to force it into a tail section of the first movie, but this means the first movie article will have an ugly split, and the history of the two films will be unfairly mangled. The current article (pair of pages) has dozens of sources in the history. All but one or two of them won’t survive two weeks beyond the release date. All those sources do not belong in the first move page history, but the second. The same history concerns apply to the editors in the edit history. Also, this approach is not applicable to non-sequels.

NFF exists as a temporary threshold-lowering guideline for good reason. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify This has all the ingredients to become a notable film and it will be in all probability. But Robert's analysis is also correct. So my vote would be to take the mid-path and draftify for now and as soon as reception emerges, bring it to main space. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article received hundreds of views per day [1]. Do you expect them to follow it to draft? Or do you think it’s ok to create yet another fork? SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:49, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still Keep. : [2] reports theatrical release 6 May 2022. Princple photography started and finished. There is no doubt that this highly anticipated film will be notable. The article is currently receiving >1000 page views per day. "heropanti 2 release date" has 1.5M Ghits. Forcing it back to draft means fighting with the readership, and they will keep trying to re-create it, because the readers expect Wikipedia to be up to date with information. There is a lot of information in the article, all reliably sourced. Deletion does not serve any reader. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if Heropanti is any indication this seems WP:Notable. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2021 (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.