Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madhagaja (2nd nomination)

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 speedy delete. While time elapsed, there's consensus that beyond notability issues, G4 also applies.

I will also EC-salt Nosebagbear (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Madhagaja[edit]

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

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

unreleased film, yet not decided the releasing date. Still a case of WP:TOOSOON. Un-referenced article. Agreed with the previously declined draft by Robert McClenon DMySon (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G4 and salt until an AfC reviewer requests unprotection. This is now the third version of this article or draft, and the second version was just recently draftified (by me) in April. All three versions merely state the existence of the upcoming film and a small cast list. 1st draft (Draft:Madhagaja) created in January, 2nd article (Draft:Madhagaja (film)) created in April and draftified per AfD, and now this article just created in July. While WP:Parallel histories are fine, I have to wonder if there is some kind of payout being sought for creation of the article if people are not willing to build off one of two drafts already there. -2pou (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per nom and the rationale above. Kolma8 (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - There is no material difference between this and the previously draftified version or the previous draft, and the film still does not satisfy future film guidelines. The good-faith explanation for the multiple creations is that the editors are ultras, enthusiastic fans for the director or one of the actors. That does not mean that we should accept this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per nom -- DaxServer (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2021 (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.