Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singh Is Bliing

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 keep: Better to invest time in other things. (Non-admin closure). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singh Is Bliing[edit]

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

Unreleased Bollywood film with no explanation of notability. AfD per WP:FUTURE and WP:NFF samtar ^(msg) 12:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. samtar ^(msg) 12:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A nonsense attempt to delete the page. Yet it has significant coverage Derevation^{Give Me Five} 13:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derevation: minor localized coverage is not sufficient per WP:NFF. samtar ^(msg) 14:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – Seriously? It clearly passes WP:NFF. The film is scheduled for release on 2 October 2015; the official trailer was released last month. —Vensatry _(ping) 15:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you re-read WP:NFF and explain your reasoning as to how this film passes "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Thanks! samtar ^(msg) 15:42, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the outcome of this AFD per se, but it strikes me as requiring an overly pedantic reading of the rules to take a film article to AFD for being a "future release" when its advertised release date is prior to the conclusion of the AFD listing period... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly yes - however if/when it does get released, I strongly doubt it'll become any more notable. samtar ^(msg) 15:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how does uploading a video to YouTube make something notable? Anyone can upload (almost) anything. Please see the guidelines relating to using YouTube videos as references. samtar ^(msg) 15:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline says Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. In this case, the production is clearly notable. Coming to YouTube, the relevant essay says There are channels for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations generally considered reliable such as that of the Associated Press on YouTube. As for this film, the trailer was uploaded by a channel owned by the production company itself. The prod. house seems to have an article over here (GA). —Vensatry _(ping) 17:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff 08:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Checking WP:INDAFD: "Singh Is Bliing"

STRONG Keep per meeting applicable inclusion criteria. Filming has begun (finished actually) and production has the coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Even when nominated] the article's sourcing reflected this. Sorry nominator, this was not the best AFD nomination. And nice to invoke WP:CBALL, but that policy does not say we cannot have forward-looking articles, and it instructs that they must be well and properly sourced and avoid unverifiable statements: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. 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." Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...and @Samtar: just a word of advice... please take a long look at the definition of film production. IF a film's production processes is spoken of in multiple reliable sources, WP:GNG may be seen as met. And please, WP:CBALL does not forbid forward-looking topics and simply cautions editors on how to deal with them. And lastly... as a topic's notability is found through sourcing being available even if not used, NO article ever has to say blatantly say "this topic is notable because". Please study WP:NRV, WP:NEXIST, WP:NOTEWORTHY, and WP:ARTN. Thanks and cheers, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:32, 1 October 2015 (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.