Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jilla (film)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jilla (film)[edit]

Jilla (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has vastly improved after the excellent work of Tokyogirl. It satisfies WP:NFF now. Salih (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the article has improved and also meets criteria for upcoming films. T4B (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to director producer it is still all entirely rumor and speculation (edited to add) and a kick off party . It fails WP:CRYSTAL . If the project were to get hung up between now and expected beginning of production there is nothing to indicate its demise would in anyway be of any lasting note to anyone. and contrary to the claims above, it most certainly does NOT meet WP:NFF-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be that pessimistic. We have now multiple reliable sources for the article and it even satisfies WP:GNG. Salih (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
just because there are sources doesnt mean that it is suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. having sources is just one of the criteria. meeting WP:NOT is another criteria, and WP:NFF is clear that speculated film projects are NOT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis you call this a speculation? Salih (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sorry. i have edited my above comment to account for the kickoff party, which, by any means is still not principal photography. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is obviously some fervent fans of this with so many AfDs but it's been filled out with some more pertinent and substantiated material. I still don't think it should be an article until it finishes filming and has the release but I'll give it the green light seeing that they held a puja.Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 19:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Production has begun now (see article). King Jakob C2 20:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate until May OR until the beginning of principle filming has been confirmed. Just as I stated last month at the February Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jilla, the planned film DOES have coverage in reliable sources, but not nearly enough to qualify as an exception to WP:NFF. The confirmed pooja is essentially a public ceremony (and press opportunity) to bring blessings upon a project, but in no way acts to confirm actual production. I admire and appreciate Tokyogirl79's work improving the article, but the topic is simply TOO SOON for a separate article. Also as we do not need Jilla (film) as a diambig, the article needs incubation at the more appropriate Jilla. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per significant coverage. NickCochrane (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is what you said at the last AfD, and I will ask the same question I asked at that time in hopes that you might provide an answer this time "Could you point out some actually significant coverage? There are a number of links to gossip and rumors, but no actual coverage." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call IBN Live and Times of India "significant". King Jakob C2 22:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what exactly is the significant content? IBN is just naming writers and director and actors, and rumored actors. the Times is a report of someone twitting that "No I am not involved." seems to me to content that is entirely non substantial. If the project were done, then the writer and directors and actors would be significant, but until there is some actual product, that is just smoke. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, the primary notability guideline does tell us that coverage can equate to notability, but the applicable notability sub-guideline for films tells us no "announced" project is a sure thing. Yes, policy instructs that properly sourced speculation can certainly be discussed within these pages, but it also includes cautions. Until we have evidence of filming actually commencing, it IS reasonable to speak of this topic, but the discussion should become more of whether of not the limited coverage of this planned project merits it being one of those rare exceptions which could have a separate article. Exceptions have been allowed, yes... but they had far more coverage and over an extended period of time. Incubating this article for a short while serves the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I said the exact same thing because it's true? This is based on the references, which are significant coverage, already existing in the article. NickCochrane (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying "significant coverage" and I keep reading and all I see is "we have a bunch of people who (oops) a bunch of different people, who want to (no, not me) do a movie sometime soon". That is not significant. You cannot swing a cat in any movie town without hitting a dozen wanna be movie projects. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:57, 27 March 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jilla_(film)&oldid=1137950038"