Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macherla Niyojakavargam (2nd nomination)

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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Macherla Niyojakavargam

[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)

Macherla Niyojakavargam

Unreleased film that is too soon and does not satisfy film notability guidelines. This article has already been moved to draft space twice, once after a previous AFD found that it was not ready for article space and was closed as Draftify. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macherla Niyojakavargam. However, the article has been moved back to article space, although it is still an unreleased film. There is nothing in this article that refers to significant coverage by independent sources. It should be either speedy-deleted as G4, or deleted. or draftified again, and the title should be Extended-Confirmed Protected in article space so that a neutral reviewer can move it into article space when the film is released and reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The film stars three actors with Wikipedia articles - so they are notable. The film was produced/is under the banner of a production house with a Wikipedia article - so that production house is notable. The film is being released next month, in August 2022, so it's not too soon. The article has multiple sources - being that they are mostly not in English I take it on faith that they are reliable. WP:NFF states "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." but this film has finished principal photography, has been edited, and is slated for release in about 30 days so, again, it's not WP:TOOSOON. So I say Keep. Shearonink (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments - Per Inclusion criteria for film notability (and yes, I get that this criteria states the verb as "was" meaning the distribution has already happened)

The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio". Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited.

I think I should mention something that struck me about this particular project. If this film was a Black Widow movie in the MCU, or a film starring Robert De Niro/Meryl Streep/Margot Robbie/etc or someone/something similar and it was opening next month, there would be an article about it and we probably wouldn't even be discussing the issue. But because this is a Telugu-language film made for the Indian market, we are discussing it. And maybe that spills over into an English-speaking POV or even bias. An appropriate guideline to perhaps keep in mind, even though it is for an associated creative industry, is WP:MUSICBIO which states in part:

Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

- Shearonink (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Delete: WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:NFILM at present. Soft deletion since it may become notable after release and thus a prior AfD should not impede a future article 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:06, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The film stars actors/actresses who have their separate Wikipedia articles, the songs of the film are also released, the film will soon release on 12 August so what's the point of deleting the article. If it was a Hollywood film the article will be created months back before the release date and nobody will debate for delition, but if it is an Indian film everyone has some or the other problems and then they ask to delete the article.

Regards User:MNWiki845 (talk) 24 July 2022.

Weak keep despite MNWiki845 claiming some sort of bias against Indian films, there is some reliably sourced information here and no doubt there will be more as the film gets released in a month's time. It does feel like the article was created too soon but its already in existence now and not far from release date. Can always be nominated post-release if it hasn't expanded further etc. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:28, 27 July 2022 (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.