Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dhaam Dhoom

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 (no consensus). Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dhaam Dhoom

Dhaam Dhoom (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Unsourced crystal balling. Contested prod. MER-C 12:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP: There are worse articles than this and this film is only entering Kollwood, so therefore we should let a month pass before taking a decision.
• Definite Keep: It is sourced! 3 times to be precise! You are deleting the information without discussion! Prince Godfather 12:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• This is a discussion. As for the concerns, it's still crystal balling and all sources must be reliable. MER-C 12:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The sources are reliable! Prince Godfather 12:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

One's a list of screenshots from a movie (which doesn't count) and I'm not convinced about the other two. We'll see what happens. MER-C 13:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Is there a notability threshold in the English language Wiki for movies made in languages OTHER than English? Eddie.willers 13:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  There are currently no guidelines relating to notability of any films, English-language or otherwise. WP:NOTFILM was not outright rejected, but it is considered historical. -- Kicking222 14:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You can fall back on the standard notability threshold then - multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. Trebor 15:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep for now, it does have sources. Can you explain why you're not convinced about the other two? Trebor 15:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete - Also high budget Hollywood films are deleted until more information and/or release. I don't find such article is neccesary now, and before release a lot of things can changes. --Cate | _Talk 15:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A 4th source has been put up.Prince Godfather 16:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Um, the film launch for the film can be viewed here and here.

• Weak delete as crystal balling. Similar articles on soon-to-exist English language films are deleted all the time. Ford MF 20:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

But why is there an importance to English films? Indian films are more known worldwide. Wikipedia is a worldwide project not a British/American project!Prince Godfather 12:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I was referencing precedent. Crystal balling is crystal balling in any language. Ford MF 19:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The film has started shooting. The sources all reveal this. Prince Godfather 18:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us know when it's started screening. Ford MF 21:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak delete even when a film is "shooting" there are a myriad of possibilities; the name will change, it won't go through production and won't be screened... that's why crystalballin' is not acceptable, just wait until the film is screened and then create the article. SkierRMH 03:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

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.