Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ponniyin selvan (2012 film)

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 incubate. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ponniyin selvan (2012 film)[edit]

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

It is too early for this article to be created and clearly fails WP:NOTFILM. The creator also clearly made this page with an incorrect title as the title should be "Ponniyin Selvan" -- that title has been blocked from creation at the moment due to premature article creation. Many details of this article are also unsourced and represents crystal balling, such as the list of cinematographers. As NOTFILM suggests, anything can happen to the fate of this project until filming officially begins, which is not the case here. It is still being conceived and still doesn't have enough offical wording that makes this article ready to be created. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Does not meet the requirements of WP:NOTFILM Wikipedian2 (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This film looks to be a pretty sure thing to be made and with an all-star cast and a huge budget, but WP:NOTFILM does not make exceptions in those cases and for good reason since anything can happen. In short, it clearly fails WP:NOTFILM. SQGibbon (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of what SQGibbon says. Every rule in Wikipedia is subject to exceptions. This especially refers to notability and other inclusion guidelines. We are permitted to use common sense. We are, unfortunately, not required to. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep or INCUBATE (SEE BELOW) and allow continued growth as a reasonable exception to the WP:NF subsection WP:NFF per the persistant and in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources over a many-years period allowing this topic per policy as being worthy of notice. The presumption toward notability as available through numerous sources, has not been rebutted, and any perceived issues with article format or content or sourcing can be addressed through regular editing. The article seeks to increase a reader's understanding of the topic, and deletion of a demonstrably notable topic does not improve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~According to this source filming doesn't start for another five or six months (October)~~ (didn't notice the first time through that the link was to a personal blog, however see below for another source). A lot can happen in that time, including the entire film being scrapped, any or all of the actors being replaced, and so on. That's the reason for the criteria outlined at WP:NOTFILM and specifically WP:NFF. If this were only a couple of weeks or even a month before filming were to begin and reliable sources were saying that it was all definitely going to happen that might be one thing, but five months out? Meanwhile, reading through the Google links provided above, the sources that establish "notability" comprise of blog posts and celebrity gossip sites. Admittedly a lot of these celebrity gossip sites get used in Wikipedia articles about Indian films but when they're even using words like "speculation" and "our sources tell us" then there is some definite crystal balling going on. If the article gets deleted now it will come back before the film is finished being made and at least then we'll have some solid information about it. The project won't be hurt by deleting it since everything about it is currently speculative and won't be confirmed for another five months. If the article is kept then at the very least we need to move it to its proper name "Ponniyin Selvan (2012 film)" (instead of "selvan"). SQGibbon (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're linking to a blog? in order to discredit the significant coverage over several years in actually reliable sorces?? Blogs are pretty much accepted as quite unreliable... so pardon me if I choose to discount what a blogger might offer elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, didn't notice it was a personal blog -- I was rushing through a lot of sites looking for good information and that's the one that stood out. Being a little more careful I came up with this from March 4, 2011 that has this line "But there has been no official announcement on the multi-crore project yet like when will be it begin, who the producer is, who are the big actors signed etc." Just about everything having to do with this film appears to be speculative. SQGibbon (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And just three weeks after your proffered March 4 report, we have confirmations of cast, crew, director, producer, etc.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Naturally, the further back one goes, the more uncertain the reporting. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Confirmation"? I did not see one official announcement in all of those sources. I did see a few that used words like "grapevine", "rumor has it", "the latest buzz", and "is said to be", but anything directly from the producer or the studio? The link I provided made the point that there has been no official announcement and I still don't see an official announcement. SQGibbon (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Indian media has a penchant for presenting nearly everything in a sensationilst manner. So what? We judge a generally reliable source, specially non-English sources, not by how they report, but by what they report and their reputations for fact-checking and accuracy within their own peer community. And a source's use of buzzwords aside, speculation is allowed as long as we report such as speculation ourselves. The wide and persistant coverage of this topic within India is the indicator that it has notability there... and notable to India should be notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though it seems to have a bad name with many editors, "speculation" is specifically among the events surrounding a future project that POLICY suggests are worth reporting. Quote: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Considering the persistance of coverage, one might think that at the minimum, incubation for a short while might serve. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That an article includes speculation from its sources is one thing, but if the the entire article is based on speculation by those sources then that's another. If there is one official comment from the studio that this project is in pre-production and names at least one person involved (the producer seems the most likely) then that would change the flavor of this debate. Yes, there's lots and lots of media speculation about this film, perhaps way more than is normal, and all that rumor-mongering may be appropriate for inclusion in an article but does it help the project if that's all there is? That's a sincere question, I know that if I want the latest rumors about some film I go to sites that specialize in that kind of reporting; if I want encyclopedic information about that film I check Wikipedia. If the entire article is about reporting rumors is it encyclopedic? (Again, serious question). SQGibbon (talk) 16:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old news becomes OLD as new news is NEW. January 17, 2001 The Hindu reports on Sun Pictures "likely to produce",[11] and then February 15, 2011 Oneindia reports "The movie is produced by Sun Pictures. Other details about the film are still under wraps."[12] So imersed within hyperbole, we have the confirmation that Sun is making the film. What needs to be granted is that anything that has not yet happened can be considered "speculation" and such is specifically allowed to be discussed within Wikipedia as long as we report it as such. Ever read 2012 phenomenon... an entire article on something that has not yet happened? "Encyclopedic" is in how such infromation is presented, speculative or not. And have you any thoughts toward incubation? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's speculation then there's speculation. This seems to be of the latter kind. For instance here's the upcoming projects page for Sun Pictures and it doesn't mention this film. If there had been any kind of official announcement that they were even thinking about doing the film then at least all this speculation would be built on something solid but as it is now it's all just built on more rumors. But whatever, that's a dead horse. As for incubation, if everyone thinks there's actually anything worth preserving in the current article then I guess I'm fine with it. Personally I have little confidence that the few claims that are in it will still be accurate if/when any official announcement is made rendering what little there is of questionable value. If filming really won't begin until October then obviously every single thing can change and change multiple times, I just don't see that we have any reliable enough information that wouldn't be trivial to recreate when something becomes official. In other words if we had a lengthy article full of good information just waiting for official and reliable sources then it would definitely be worth incubating, but in its current state and the current quality of information available about the film, what's the point? Like I said though, if y'all want to incubate it then that's fine with me. SQGibbon (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... but we really cannot judge the studios of other countries by the same measure that we do in the US... specialy in a country with over 1.1 billion citizens, and almost as many differrnt languages as the US has states. Different priorties. Different pressures. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NFF, with no prejudice towards eventual recreation. There are very good reasons for this guideline, and it really would be wiser to wait on this one.--Yaksar (let's chat) 02:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NFF is not a policy, and is ony one brief subsection of the greater body of guideline WP:NF... one which itself reasonable advises "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline. The general guideline for notability shared by most of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is that: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, its not a policy, but it is a very logical guideline to follow and has usually been widely enforced for good reasons.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that you below grant the worth of incubation in this case. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userify. Agree with the nom. As of now, there is massive speculation about this film and no one knows what exactly is going on. (the guessing game for the cast has become ridiculous these days). And it is not sure if the film will pan out or not. There have been many attempts to film Ponniyin Selvan before and all of them have been unsuccessful. Everytime there is an announcement, there will be wild speculation for a while and it will die down after sometime. And it is a nightmare to maintain such a page, when virtually every piece of information being added is speculative. Userify it now and lets wait for filming to begin (my personal bet is, this won't see the light of the day - the novel is too difficult to adapt for a 2.5-3 hour film :-) ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodabottle (talk • contribs) 04:02, April 19, 2011
Since I sought your opinion about the topic,[13] perhaps suggesting the guideline encouraged option on incubation might be a more reasonnable choice than outright deletion or a return to its author. At least in the WP:Incubator it might get attention from more eyes than if userfied someplace. And incubated, it would be out of mainspace... which might appeal to those who do not accept that NFF is not an ironclad rule, specially when treating it as if it were policy does not improve the project. If the film begins production, the article returns... if not, not. Seems a win-win. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see any issues with that, it makes sense to me at least.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks. And a note... even a film that is never nade might be notable through its failure.... but that's another argument for another day. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:59, 19 April 2011 (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.