Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oru Naal Podhuma

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 Delete Checking through the page history for NF, there does appear to be a consensus for the current standard on proposed films. This article clearly doesn't meet the guideline so this comes out as a delete. There may be a discussion to be had on the policy but the place to do that is on the guideline talk page and/or the village pump. Spartaz Humbug! 20:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oru Naal Podhuma

Oru Naal Podhuma (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:NF and from the number of people who have left the project, there's no guarantee that the film will meet its current target production dates. Girolamo Savonarola 04:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You need to read WP:NF, because this isn't a sourcing issue - the film fails notability by virtue of having not started production. It's not an editing issue. Girolamo Savonarola 17:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep level of sourcing indicates this meets WP:N. WP:NF seems pretty geared towards deletionism... I felt like placing a {{disputed}} tag on that section, it would seem to needlessly preclude a lot of notable articles. --W.marsh 13:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It isn't about deletionism - we actively encourage article merge/redirects where possible - but rather due to the rampant problems with films which are slated for production and never wind up starting it. It's a matter of crystal-balling that occurs due to the variability of film development, regardless of the extent of sources. This article itself states that it has gone through several changes since its announcement, rotating three heroines and also the director, and it was originally announced over a year ago in substantially different form. In any case, your concerns about the guideline need to be discussed on that guideline's talk page, not here. The guideline had consensus and was not the result of a unilateral edit. Girolamo Savonarola 14:03, 23 October 2007 (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.