Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karma (2008 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Karma (2008 film)

Karma (2008 film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

An article about an upcoming and non-notable movie. Movie is not in the IMDB. Per WP:NOTE, WP:NFF, WP:CRYSTAL Wiki-nightmare (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Article consists almost entirely of a plot summary and trivia section. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 (T / C) 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. None of the actors listed has this movie in their IMDB listings. Source or delete.--Thalia42 (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Mere absence of IMDB pages is not indicative of a lack of notability (I know of many notable people and films with no IMDB articles, particularly those from countries with non-Latin alphabets). Also, it is hard to figure out how much of the article and the associated actor pages to keep, because they were clearly created to read like an advertisement. However, there do seem to be some reliable third-party sources that talk about the film... Also, the purported release date of April is pretty close. Esn (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Need to dig deeper per [1], [2], [3], [4] Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Not an offense to Wikipedia, can easily flourish into a full sized article. Any "advertisement sounding" sections can easily be NPOV'd. Has respectable media attached, not too much not too little. I believe the point of Wikipedia is to give people a collection of information that could potentially be difficult to find in the first place. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: On this sources there is an relative lack of information about the movie. The claims in the sources do not seem to indicate much notability. But it's a pretty good indicator/reference for an non-notable movie. Wiki-nightmare (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:25, 16 March 2008 (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.