Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K: Secret Eye

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 delete. sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

K: Secret Eye[edit]

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

Upcoming film which does not meet notability for films because there is no coverage in reliable sources. While the film may become notable after release, it is currently too soon. It should also be noted that the article creator's username is the same as the director's first name. Opencooper (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in looking beyond the article:

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Secret Eye Abhirup Ghosh Rudranil Ghosh Rajatava Dutta Santanu Chakrobarty Chinmoy Pal

Delete and/or draftify per failing WP:NFF. Searches seem to indicate that the fillmaker is a film student, and even if ignoring the common-in-India first name "Abhirup" and a possible WP:COI, filming of this has not been confirmed, and the topic has not the wide coverage that we would prefer. We can wait and revisit the topic in a few months. It is not unsourcable, but THIS needs translation and while THIS does not confirm filming in text, its included movie stills are strongly indicative. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The film has an IMDB page and its Facebook and Twitter pages have shooting stills which establish that shooting has taken place. I think this complies with the terms of Wikipedia. This is the official facebook page [1]. This is the IMDB page [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhirup8 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC) — Abhirup8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just existing isn't enough, articles in Wikipedia require coverage of the subject in reliable and independent sources to establish notability. Opencooper (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Times of India is one of the biggest and most trusted newspapers in India. It has written about the film. This link has been shared [3]. I think this is a reliable enough source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhirup8 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC) — Abhirup8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes I saw the source. Unfortunately that's not enough. It's a short article while notability requires in-depth coverage from multiple sources. Two short news stories do not lend themselves to an encyclopedia article about the subject. Opencooper (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another source has been added. There are numerous film related wikis which have much lesser sources than K: Secret Eye yet they pass notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhirup8 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be other articles that might not meet our notability criteria, but that doesn't mean they won't be deleted nor that those films meet our standards. This deletion discussion is talking about this film in particular, so arguments should focus on it specifically. Unless I'm mistaken, that article is from the same newspaper as the previous source, the Prabasher Khaber. Notability requires coverage in multiple sources, and even if we included this one, it would still not constitute significant in-depth coverage. Opencooper (talk) 05:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's still nothing for the needed solid independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 3 June 2016 (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.