Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baazaar

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. czar 20:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baazaar[edit]

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

Contested PROD (removed with no rationale). There is only minimal coverage of this upcoming film, which the one source provided indicates isn't meant to be released until the end of the year, making this clearly TOOSOON for an article. While the cast members listed are notable, notability isn't inherited. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It may be worth mentioning that there's certainly no prejudice towards the recreation of this article if and when the production is further along and/or the coverage justifies it. As the facts on the ground change, an article subject can always become notable. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response: with filming confirmed and production having suitable coverage, WP:NFF is met and the film topic is proven notable, thank you.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion you've expressed elsewhere, yes. This comment was written earlier in the piece, and responded to what appeared to be a concern at that time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but IF their inclusion brings press coverage, then notability is brought forward too. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If there's coverage, and that coverage satisfies either NFILM or GNG, then it doesn't matter what prompted the coverage. No disagreement there. My point is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and the article doesn't get a free pass simply because a phalanx of performers with notability are in it. The film needs to be notable itself, no? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 04:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alts:

WP:INDAFD: Baazaar Baazaar

KEEP per filming being confirmed in Bollywood Hungama and the production IS being spoken of directly and in some detail in such as Times of India (1), Times of India (2), Deccan Chronicle, Hindustan Times, Indian Express, Bollywood Hungama, First Post (1), First Post (2), Daily News & Analysis (1), Daily News & Analysis (2), Bolyspice, NDTV, and many more. This needs to be expanded and far better sourced to more obviously show it meeting applicable criteria and WP:NFF. BigHaz..? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:26, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 00:11, 17 July 2017 (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.