Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valiyaperunnal

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valiyaperunnal

[edit]

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

Valiyaperunnal (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)

Non-notable film, no WP:SIGCOV found, article poorly sourced, and no claim of notability in article. CSD A7 doens't apply to films, so I'm listing here. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Skeletor3000: Hai please check the article now, I just edited it as much as I know Ravishingstar (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ravishingstar: You've certainly improved the sources, but I still don't see significant coverage. Those that are focused on the film consist of the same canned release details. Those that have more depth are focused on individual actors, etc and only mention the film in name. WP:NFF suggests that unreleased films should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable. I haven't seen any mention of production details that would meet that guideline. It's my opinion that at least until the release, this one fits under WP:TOOSOON, and after the release, film reviews will likely be the source of notability. Thanks for your comment. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep considering its opening in two weeks it would surely have been better to wait until then to see if reliable sources reviews are forthcoming, drafting would also have been a better option, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Skeletor3000: Hey, please check the article now, I have added some production details. Listen please, in this region this is an important film, so many people are looking forwad about the film as the movie hero named shane nigam is sensational. we all know it's a reliable film; so many references are cited there. Please check and you can do the favour to the article from your side as you are an experienced wikipedian. Because I believe the article must be in Wikipedia. Ravishingstar (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Ravishingstar: Please see WP:NF, specifically WP:NFSOURCES. I don't doubt that this film is highly anticipated by fans, but the article still lacks a claim of significance. In other words, the article tells us details about the movie, but it does not tell or demonstrate why the movie is important. Lacking such a claim (even an unreferenced one) makes articles eligible for speedy deletion in many cases. If it winds up being kept per Atlantic306's reasoning, a verifiable claim of its notability needs to be added to the article as soon as possible. If it's notable, news coverage or reviews will provide more significant coverage that can be used to add a verifiable claim of notability. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Claims of significance is a lower standard for speedy deletion A7 which excludes films, notability is the standard that applies which means WP:GNG. Having significant coverage in reliable sources is the claim of significance rather than any specific claims, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I may be convoluting the issue by mentioning A7 or claims to significance. My thinking was that in lieu of standard post-release coverage, a claim of something notable about the film would be an improvement over an article only stating its existence, cast, etc. WP:GNG is indeed the standard, however. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Skeletor3000: Please wait for only six days, the movie will release on coming 20. So please keep the article and don’t delete Ravishingstar (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Skeletor3000: The film’s trailer released, i added details about the trailer release with references, also please check this: the Wikipedia already added the film Valiyaperunnal on the list of movies 2019, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Malayalam_films_of_2019 . please check and remove the deletion tag please Ravishingstar (talk) 06:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : @Skeletor3000: Have you checked article? What do you make of it? expecting the response!!

What is it that you're showing me? Did you check WP:NFF as I suggested? You seem to be missing the point. We don't need more sources referencing the same generic upcoming release details. We need something that passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. It looks like the film is going to be released before this round of discussion is finished. The only other editor to discuss this AfD has suggested just waiting until it's released to see if coverage improves. It seems like that's essentially what will happen now that the discussion has been extended, so let's just wait and do a search for significant coverage after it releases. In my opinion, the article is now heavily over-referenced, with 2 references supporting details like who is scoring the film. No reason not to just leave it and wait until the release for better coverage to emerge. Adding further references to the same generic details doesn't improve its notability. Skeletor3000 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Skeletor3000: Hai there, the movie has been released today (20 December), I have cited a soucre of movie review in the article. Please check it and do the needful to remove the deletion tag. Ravishingstar (talk) 06:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravishingstar: I'm not seeing any reviews in the article. I see you added its rating certificate. Is that what you mean? I'll search later today. Please know that the deletion discussion closes through consensus. I don't just delete the tag when I'm personally convinced. If I find reviews later, I'll add them to the article and mention them here. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran: why you guys are always finding reasonable to delete the article? I don’t understand. As a fresher of Wikipedia i make mistake, I’m not an experienced editor or creator. As a fresher i am expecting help and guidance from those admins or experienced editors. But it seems like torturing me. There are a few things about the films on google, I don’t know how to add it on the article. So kidly please check and edit or remove the unwanted details as well as add some details needed. Hope for the guidance. Loving Wikipedia Ravishingstar (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravishingstar: Hi. I apologise you feel that way. I can understand very well how you are feeling/what you are going through (one of the articles I created got deleted recently after a policy was changed). But here on wikipedia, we have to follow policies, and guidelines. I have included the related policies in my previous comment. Before commenting as "delete", I searched on internet, but I found that the film is not notable. It is not about how many links, or references are there; it is about the notability. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran: first of all the movie just released today. So please wait for the references, which references want for notable for a film Ravishingstar (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's released. Is there coverage now?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Skeletor3000: didn’t searched properly i think or you didn’t get the reviews, there are sufficient reviews i think. I will show some reliable sources.
[1](Times of India), [2](THE WEEK), [3] (Indian Express), [4], [5], [6], [7] (THE HINDU), [8], [9], [10], [11].

It is enough to keep i think, @Spartaz: @Skeletor3000: @Usernamekiran: kindly please do the needful to remove the speedy deletion tag. Thanks Ravishingstar (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment some of the review links posted by Ravishingstar are from reliable sources, but they are not enough for establishing notability. Nowadays, almost all the media houses have online divisions, and they are generous with their publishing. To get visits to their sites, they are covering whatever they can. The reviews are not from the motable critics as suggested by the guideline. That still makes my vote as delete as above. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    in my original comment, i mistakenly dropped out "not", which i added later. I have underlined it. I apologise for the confusion caused till the update. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:00, 28 December 2019 (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/Valiyaperunnal&oldid=933174521"