Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veeran Naal Sardari

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 WP:INCUBATE. There is a consensus to delete given the current lack of coverage; since, as some editors point out, this is very likely to need an article in the near future (once the movie is released), incubating may make it easier to restart that process Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veeran Naal Sardari[edit]

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

I am unable to find significant discussion of this upcoming film in sources other than social networking, blogs, etc. There are a lot of sites with the trailer, but don't tend give substantive information except for actors' names. ... discospinster _talk 23:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^*poke* 00:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, covered in mainstream media here: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120408/ttlife1.htm --Soman (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't know if that can be considered significant coverage. The article is about beauty routines of actresses, and the film is mentioned as an aside. ... discospinster _talk 13:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response: What qualifies As significant coverage is a topic being spoken of in a manner so that our own readers need not have to extrapolate details. IE: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. So if it is determined that the film is being spoken of "as an aside" and only in a trivial fashion, then your argument has merit. If the film is spoken about in enough detail and relationship to the actor's career even with the film not being the main subject of the source, then it is not. At the very least, the offered source confirms the actress being in the film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Well, it says that she's in the movie, and that's it. ... discospinster _talk 15:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate per WP:NFF and TOO SOON as an unreleased film that is only now beginning to get coverage. I expect this one will be welcome back in mainspsce within months. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage in reliable sources apparent from the article, the passing mention indicated above is insignificant. Also, though that's not a good argument for deletion, the content is of extremely poor quality and nobody has been motivated to rewrite it... Sandstein 06:40, 22 July 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.