Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batti Gul Meter Chalu

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:08, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Batti Gul Meter Chalu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Unreleased film in production that fails WP:TOOSOON and WP:NFILM. Shooting for the movie has started, but no in-depth coverage has been produced about the production of the upcoming film, so WP:NFF is failed. Additionally, the film has yet to receive the widespread coverage and consideration as a lasting or significant impact on the film industry to meet WP:NFILM criteria. A move to Draft is also an acceptable outcome in my view. SamHolt6 (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm seeing lots od coverage for the film already. Seems a strange nom to me. Notable film with stars. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The film has a cast of notable actors, but this in itself does not make the film notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NFF is the major concern, as the coverage about the film itself is in my view lacking in significance. Per NFF, Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theaters or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable, and the film was reported to have begun principle photography on 12 February. Cruft about the appearance of notable actors in a future film does not meet these requirements.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with SamHolt6 on two counts WP:NOTINHERITED significance. The actors do not make the film notable. The film must have its own independent coverage which it lacks. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets the notability criteria. "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theaters or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable". This one has significant coverage in the media, a simple google search will tell you that, which is what "notability" is. An expectation of "in-depth coverage" for any unreleased film, not just this one, is silly. --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 06:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not related to the amount of information that exists around a topic, but rather the verifiability and depth of said information. WP:SIGCOV exists for this very reason. As for your other concerns, news about actors slated to appear in the film do not themselves lend notability to movie. Your statement "An expectation of "in-depth coverage" for any unreleased film, not just this one, is silly" is also not applicable, as WP:NFILM clearly lays down notability criteria for released film (and so future films do not pass by default) and WP:NFF (Which is intended to allow articles for legitimately notable future films to be created without passing NFILM]] requires the production of a film, not just it's cast, to be notable. All of these need to be fulfilled through the citation of in depth sources, this article lacks this quality.--SamHolt6 (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not verifiable? The fact that major publications have written about the film, including this and this, to list just two, is reason enough to merit an article. Your concerns are invalid for an unreleased film. Repeating the same arguments will not help either. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a personal opinion that clashes with established policy.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets the notable guidelines. Echoing Krimuk, we cannot really expect an "in-depth coverage" from a film which is in a nascent stage. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting that an article is notable can be boiled down to personal interpretation, but WP:NFF is a policy for this very reason.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If it is true that 'we cannot really expect an "in-depth coverage"' as @Yashthepunisher: and @Krimuk2.0: argue, then a WP article isn't warranted, either. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 01:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- WP:TOOSOON at this point. Re: we cannot really expect an "in-depth coverage" from a film which is in a nascent stage -- then the article should not be created yet. If no suitable sources exist, the only purpose for this page to be here is to promote the film, which wikipedia does WP:NOT do. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "in-depth coverage" for an unreleased film that's currently filming, and direct me to the specific policy. Thank you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:12, 25 February 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.