Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat 211 (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 delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flat 211 (Film)

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

Upcoming and unfilmed as of now unotable film. see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunil Sanjan Wgolf (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-I should of moved the article to Flat 211 given that there is no page for that....well I'm going to make a redirect to here for that. Wgolf (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar to the article on the director/producer of this film Sunil Sanjan which is also up for AfD, this reeks of a vanity article written for promotional purposes.

Ref 1-4, 11 is IMDb so not RS. Ref 5, 8, and 10 is by Ajha Global which is owned by the director and producer of this film so not independent or RS in this context. Ref 6, 7 are not RS (gossip/blog like sites). Ref 9 is from Punjab Kesari but this short piece on it is probably not enough to support notability.
Promotional tone: example "Ninety nine percent of cast and crew is Dubai based NRI's who are working selflessly just because of passion for acting and films, not for money. Whole cast and crew is selected based on their extreme passion towards films & acting keeping in mind required basic skills to do their respective roles and jobs."
In my own search, I was unable to find additional refs to support notability as per WP:GNG, or WP:NFF
In summary, vanity article written for the promotion of an upcoming non-notable film. Cowlibob (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:NYF for now as the project, while filming is not yet released and, issues aside, does not have enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Allow undeletion and return when or if notability can be established. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not Delete~~-- I do not agree here with reason for deletion of Flat 211 (Film). Every film is not notable before release. Its only exceptions. For references there is Punjab Kesari and other articles available. Is it some how linked to director's page by the other user who recommended for deletion of that page ? Then this is not fair enough. Kumarsunils (talk) 06:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — Kumarsunils (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sorry, I understand your angst, but simply existing or being linked to other Wikipedia articles is not a reason to include. What is required, per our inclusion criteria is it being covered in reliable sources and I accept it has decent enough coverage in sources Bollywood Tadka and Odagam and Punjab Kesari, but the issue for an unreleased film or one still filming, is that we look to WP:NFF which instructs that a film not yet released needs a bit more coverage than what has been found. Don't worry, as more sources come forward, it can always be undeleted... and you can always ask that it be moved to draft space for continued work until then. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- Kumarsunils (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Thanks Michael for your positive comments and approach. Really appreciate it. Yes we will continue work on with more additional references. Another reference of news on India TV, a national TV is added. India TV News No. 199 (After 16:22 minute). We will continue working on adding more references. Mean while request to let the page be there. @ User:MichaelQSchmidt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsunils (talk • contribs) 07:54, 13 March 2015‎‎ -- and sorry Kumarsunils I had to strike your extra vote. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- Also I just read WP:NFF guidelines, it suggests that "Film can have budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." So this applies to films for which filming is just announced or started. But Flat 211 (Film) is already 90% complete in terms of filming. Flat 211 at IMDb has this information that 90% of film is already complete. Thanks in advance & appreciate your comments on it @ User:MichaelQSchmidt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsunils (talk • contribs) 07:54, 13 March 2015‎‎ -- and sorry Kumarsunils I had to strike your extra vote. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.}

Sorry Kumarsunils, and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but IMDB is not considered a "reliable source", specially for films not yet released. Even accepting the film may be 90% completed, its release date is not until 2016. WP:NFF (paragraph 3) is not met. And as an instruction, The proper term would be "Keep", not "Do not Delete"... and only one "keep to a customer. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Thanks Michal for further clarification and for your kind help. Apologies for using wrong term as I was not aware of same, thanks for same. I have corrected it now. Reelable source can be only production company, do they accept this as reliable source ? If yes we may try to find info from production and add as reference. Thanks. Appreciate your kind help and support. -- Kumarsunils (talk) 08:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had to strike your extra votes again. Only ONE to a customer. To your question about the film's production company, Read WP:ABOUTSELF. It can be used to cite facts not in contention, but it does nothing to show notability. Have you read Wikipedia:Notability (films) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film yet? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:06, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Michal. Give me some time. I will try to add references for facts and also other references ASAP. But till then request to keep the page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsunils (talk • contribs)

~~Keep~~ Good to see some positive people supporting the page. Thanks Michal for you honesty, we will look for more references and sources. But request you to please keep the page. Thanks. Natashasencute (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — Natashasencute (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ Happy to find some support for this page. Appreciate Michal for his neutral and good intent. As mentioned by others additional information might come and also I can see some additional references have been provided. Request to keep the page. Alishasamuel (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — Alishasamuel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ We need to appreciate Michal for his fairness and positive approach.Thanks Michal. Request to keep the page and we all will help in improving on points which are some how lacking info. But for sure we will come up with more info. Surekha Rao (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — Surekha Rao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I see that votestacking on one side is occurring at this Afd as well. Please note that the outcome of this discussion will not be by number of votes but by the strength of arguments so it is a waste of time and can in fact lead your case to be damaged in the eyes of users. Cowlibob (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) To users Kumarsunils, Natashasencute, Alishasamuel, and Surekha Rao: It's not a count of votes that will result in a keep or a delete... it's guideline and policy based arguments and an evaluation and decision by an uninvolved party. As the arguments for deletion are based in policy and guideline, that makes them "stronger" than those for keep, and a deletion is the so far most likely outcome. What I suggest is that this can be moved to a userspace as a draft that can be worked on.

As you are all new accounts [1][2][3][4] and making the same type of arguments and all misspelling my name in the same manner, I do wish to caution all these accounts to read WP:Sockpuppet and WP:Meatpuppet, and Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry. There are admins with the tools to determine if accounts are being operated by the same person and while I hope they are not, using multiple accounts to try to sway a discussion could result in a block of the master account and his puppets. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have struck out votes from sockpuppets of Kumarsunils (Natashasencute, Alishasamuel, and Surekha Rao as confirmed by CheckUser evidence) - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kumarsunils/Archive. Esquivalience ^t 02:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 02:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had assumed that this was a WP:SNOWBALL case where an opinion was hardly needed. However, this is clearly not notable, and certainly not worth retaining at present. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:25, 22 March 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.