Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siva's Untitled Project

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 Incubation. J04n(talk page) 23:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siva's Untitled Project

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

subject of the article fails WP:NFILM, no third party sources indicating principal photography has begun. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless that's the actual name of the work, this doesn't even clear WP:HAMMER. Is this the first time that rule has been applied to a film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandmartin11 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Incubate for a short while per TOO SOON. While the untitled project has been written of in multiple reliable sources, it is still in pre-production and its cast has not been finalized. Not enough in-depth and persistant coverage to merit being a separate article and possible exception to WP:NFF. Possible merge of some information to Siva (director): Even if not a yet suitable for a separate article, we might have a sourced mention in the director's article about his upcoming-and-as-yet-untitled 2013 project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC) (modified stance) Changed to incubate as sources indicate production will begin next month. Allow undeletion once filming begins.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would be acceptable as well, although if this potential project is not significant enough to have been included in his article already, then that is a clear sign that the subject is not of sufficient notability to exist as a stand alone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be fair... a sourced mention about a planned film was there when I commented above. It may be possible that when someone created the Siva's Untitled Project article, they may have thought that with its own article the topic did not need expansion in the director's article. But as you have brought the issue of where the information is not, and based upon my own suggestion above and because no one else did it... I followed my own advice and placed a sourced mention into the director's article,[1] and then modified my stance above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per significant coverage. LenaLeonard (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is ~~"significant" coverage of~~ many links to gossip, rumors and speculation, but that doesn't make a valid encyclopedia article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If not notable YET for a separate article, the project is imminent enough to Incubate and there is enough in reliable sources[2] so that per WP:CBALL it might at least be written of somewhere even if filming has not yet begun... and that's per applicable policy instructing how to write of anticipated events. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i have no objections to incubation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:56, 15 February 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.