Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sorry (2017 film) (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 draftify to Draft:Sorry (2017 film), where it will remain until it is substantially improved to conform with the issues raised in this discussion; if the article goes unedited for six months, it will automatically be deleted as an abandoned draft. bd2412 T 16:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry (2017 film)[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)

Nominating this page again for deletion. This is a non-notable film which is not released. The motive of this is only vandalism and advertisment/ promotion of the film. Most contributors are socks and have been globally locked. Socks are used to fool wikipedia about it's release. From the creation of the article it was shown that this film will release on September 2017 it's almost 14 months passed yet no release. ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 08:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are enough sources for WP:GNG to be passed. Also, this is a disruptive nomination as the previous afd by the same nominator resulted in keep on 26 August 2018 so this is a challenge of that decision that should have gone to deletion review not another AFD so soon and that is why there should be some limit on the time period for renomination of kept articles, personally I would say 3 years but at least 6 months Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: Is it ok to support a film article which really doesn't exists?. It's all hoax and seems paid news for promotion of the film. I don't mind to keep it if it's released, but almost a year now its only postponed dates used for this article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it's truly liable for deletion under WP:NFF --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 04:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, was the film shown at the film festival mentioned and did it win the awards listed? I can't get the refs to load today, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: as I see the article Ambarnath Film Festival again it's made by one of the socks of Ivan. I doubt that article was created to support this article, yet that article is notable and has its own importance. With this article in question there is no reliable source to prove that the film received an award. The links added to the same in the article are if a local newspaper and the website is live and everyday new news comes on that so is hard to find out the authenticity of the source. Again this may be done intentionally by the sock to provide fake citations. Thanking you --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 17:15, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Can you give any evidence that it's a hoax please? if it is i'll change my vote, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Atlantic306: Can you please provide three reliable sources which covers this film significantly? Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete the subject doesnt pass WP:NFILM, nor WP:GNG. There is not significant coverage of that film. Even the sources used in the article are false. I removed one a few minutes ago from now, and like these: http://paper.hindustantimes.com/epaper/viewer.aspx Not sure what Atlantic is expecting to be loaded. This lokmat article, and this source have been cited in the article. Both of them are same to the punctuation marks. The third source, has extremely minor changes in the article. While print media of Lokmat has ~~hood~~ good reputation, the e-copy has not. And this article is clearly a puff piece. And the esakal source is a brief version of the lokmat. Rest of the (non reliable) sources have only one word mention of film, in the list of films screened at Ambarnath film festival. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument here is vague, I guess you mean Lokmat has a good reputation rather than a hood reputation which would be bad! Also you say that the film was shown at the festival in which case the article is not so much a fake? but the references are a press release ? please clarify if you want me to change my vote, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is my argument vague here? If a subject doesnt have significant coverage, then are we supposed to present other sources that does not mention the subject? I never said the article/film was hoax. I said few of the sources used in the article are false. I even provided one example. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems like any deletion should be deferred until the film has been released theatrically. There appears to be enough coverage of the film to suggest some notability, certainly it will be notable if it receives reviews from major publications. Hzh (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: Hi. In the beginning, a similar thought had come across my mind too, but I was thinking about draftifying. But I find it strange that it was shown at a festival, and yet it hasnt been released theatrically, TV, neither on home media. Also, the release date is backed up by three sources; two of which are user generated, and third source doesnt mention the release date. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:56, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unusual for a film to be shown in a festival first before it is released theatrically. You see it often, sometimes even for television series. For example, Sundance Film Festival often shows films that had not been released theatrically, such as Call Me by Your Name (you can look into its release history). Perhaps they feel the publicity at the festival will be good for the film when it is finally released to the public. It is what many film-makers often do, usually independent ones, sometimes major Hollywood films are also shown in film festivals first, such as the Cannes Film Festival and other festivals (e.g. this year A Star Is Born premiered at the Venice Film Festival first). It is not an issue for me. Hzh (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: Hi. You are correct, I know it is not usual. But one year is a very long period. Also, you should see the AfD I linked in the comment below. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The release of Call Me by Your Name was over 10 months between its showing at the film festival and its (limited) theatrical release, and its wider theatrical release was even later. I've heard of films that were released a couple of years later. Can you show that the websites given in the article are perpetuating a hoax? It is a bold claim. Hzh (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: I completely agree with you, but the socking history of these articles; and background of other articles make me doubt about the authenticity of this article. In other articles, sources stating that the films were screened at Toronto film festival were provided. It is possible the same thing is happening here. One film won an award in the film festival that wasn't even operational at that time. I see no reason nor any source confirming this movie was nominated for awards in Ambarnath film festival. I can read Marathi language, and couldn't find any source confirming it was nominated. A film being screened at a non notable film festival of same regional language, is not enough to have an article. —usernamekiran(talk) 03:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Hzh's analysis, it is WP:TOOSOON. It might become notable if it gets theatrical release (or at least gets substantial independent media attention prior to that). But it hasn't yet. In the mean time, it's just a sock magnet. It's now been a few months after the last AFD, and it's now many more months after the sources claim it will be released. Seems like the project stalled? When it gets released and gets more than writing about standard parts of its filming, it could merit an article. DMacks (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing administrator: Apparently all the articles related to the director of this movie are based on lies. Kindly see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pratisaad - The Response, a bundled AfD. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
pinging @Hzh, Atlantic306, Tiven2240, and DMacks: —usernamekiran(talk) 21:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you might have found possible errors in the articles does not make them lies. Hzh (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is the bedrock of wikipedia content. If we have content that is not supported by WP:RS, it should be removed. If it's just a mistake, such as an incorrect year, it should be fixed. And that should be trivial to figure out because there would be a cited reliable source to support what is correct. But if there is no supportable claim of notability (because the claims of notability fail verification), then the article fails WP:GNG at this time. DMacks (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read the source news article to mean the film was awarded, although it did not specify the precise award, and that would be my issue with the source. Hzh (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft changing vote to move to draftspace and wait until it is released before the AFC process as there are valid concerns of fakery and whether it will actually get released, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A306.∯WBG^converse 10:21, 4 November 2018 (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.