Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kammatipaadam

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 speedy keep (Criterion 1) (non-admin closure) Rebb ing 23:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kammatipaadam

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

Unreleased film does not meet the film notability guideline's requirement of significant, independent coverage, and, per WP:NFF, "films that . . . have not yet been publicly released . . . should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Rebb ing 18:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination was bad, and I feel bad. I withdraw. Rebb ing 23:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

a deeper look...

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

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

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

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

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

and with WP:INDAFD: Kammatti Paadam Rajeev Ravi Dulquer Salman Vinay Forrt Kammatipaadam

Keep as while searches for this by an incorrect title creates issue, filming was in progress early February, and completed filming in early March, and WP:BEFORE shows that the project's production has coverage enough to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3).[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] So... sorry Rebbing, but I believe it meets criteria and it is far better for the project that this be kept and improved through the many available sources. And the article will need to be moved to Kammatti Paadam. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicely done. I went through your sources and added everything I thought was plausibly useful. I also moved the page as you suggested. (I understand moving a page while it's at AfD is discouraged, but, as I nominated this article, I feel I ought to do it since it clearly needs to be done.) Assuming the International Business Times qualifies as a reliable source (it seems to be in doubt, but, for the proposition that the film has begun principal photography, I have no objection), the film clearly passes WP:NFF. However, all of the coverage you linked as well as what I found myself for the film itself—not, say, its director or its studio—is pretty routine. Rebb ing 01:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent Y and it does need more work (PS... it needs two t's. IE: Kammatti Paadam} Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Moved to Kammatti Paadam. Rebb ing 23:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Shall we close this AFD, or do you wish for others to speak up? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        At this point, I stand by my nomination in its entirety. In my view, the coverage presented is trivial and routine and does not come close to satisfying the notability requirement, especially for an unreleased film. Most tellingly, it doesn't appear that there's enough reliable source material to write more than a paragraph or two of encyclopedic, relevant, properly-sourced -content: compare WP:WHYN's admonition that "[w]e require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Rebb ing 04:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response: It is unfortunate that Indian media do not usually write long and incisive articles about their films, but I believe just as you stated above "the film clearly passes WP:NFF" and also that the likelihood of there being even more toward WP:NF is pretty much assured in consideration of the notable director and cast.. it will just take looking. Toward your narrow interpretation of WP:NFF (paragraph 3), you might then offer a suitable place where the information might be merged for a few weeks, and in the meantime I'll do some work on it so others may also agree as do we both that WP:NFF is met and as a suitable stub article it can be kept and expanded over time and through regular editing. Thanks, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I wasn't clear above. I agree that the film doesn't have a problem under WP:NFF paragraph 1 (films not confirmed to have commenced principal photography should not have articles), but that's not the same as saying the film satisfies the notability guidelines. In my view, NPP paragraph 3 (unreleased films) forecloses notability as the production itself is not notable: the production coverage of which I am aware is either not reliable or very much routine and not at all significant, and I also believe it wouldn't be notable under WP:NF and WP:GNG even as a released film. Also, notability doesn't transfer (a film isn't notable merely because its performers or directors are notable), and the future possibility of notability doesn't make a subject notable today.

As for merging, there is almost no content in this article to merge. The article can be summed up as: a certain Malayalam film was directed by a certain person, written by another, stars these people, was written at this time, and is slated to be released later this year. I would suggest mentioning the film in each participant's filmography, as appears to have been done. I believe retaining this stub, as you suggest, would be inappropriate at this time. Rebb ing 05:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were not clear. Either it passes the inclusion criteria (even if barely) of WP:NFF (paragraph 3) or it does not. So we await a consensus. If others agree it does, it can be allowed to stay as a (guideline encouraged) improvable stub (see WP:IMPERFECT)... for as as much as it would be wonderful if everything written for Wikipedia was already perfect, such wished-for perfection is not an absolute demand of guideline nor policy. Imagine how pointless this work would have been had all 682 been perfect at their outset. And to further disagree with you and since all sources speak toward the director Rajeev Ravi, I included a sourced statement therein worthy of being at most a very temporary redirect target. And if deleted, we definitely need to encourage someone to continue working on a version in a draftspace, as the current stub when WP:REFUNDED would be sent again to AFD by someone else (not you) impatient with the pace of regular editing, and/or unable or unwilling (not you) to find the many available sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that my objection to this article has little to do with its current imperfection and much to do with its subject: notability isn't based on the article's sourcing, and, therefore, no amount of improvement, encouragement, or patience could make this subject notable. Rebb ing 14:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that notability is not based upon sources being used, but rather upon their being available. Abd while I only posted the first few I found to show what you missed in your own BEFORE, I feel there is enough more sourcing available to meet inclusion under WP:NFF (paragraph 3) and so to allow continued efforts. You do not. I feel the topic can be improved to serve the project. You do not. A difference of opinion is fine, but that is why I will await consensus. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Concerns about WP:BITE toward a new editor aside, I ask editors to study the original unsourced poor stub that was nominated just 23 minutes after being contributed and then look at what was done to improve the article for this completed and-soon-to-release film with only a little effort. The questions now become 1) is it a suitable stub and 2) is the project served by this now, or not? Thanks Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As it stands, I believe this article fails the relevant notability guidelines, so I won't withdraw my nomination. I disagree with your statement that the question to resolve is whether or not the project is served by this article; notability, not usefulness, is the baseline for AfD debates, see WP:USEFUL (essay); WP:VALUABLE (essay); cf. WP:NOHARM (essay), and notability is determined by the subject, not the article's content or quality, see WP:ARTN (guideline). Perhaps you should bring a proposal to amend the notability guidelines to make editor effort and interest a valid retention criterion.

As for WP:BITE (guideline), I don't read it as discouraging nominating for deletion new editors' articles; new page patrollers routinely CSDify articles created by brand-new contributors—an arguably harsher treatment. In your digging, you should have noticed that this was the editor's fourth new article in less than an hour; all of his article creations, including the two he'd created the week before, were similarly undeveloped and unimproved, so waiting on this seemed unlikely to improve matters—especially as my concern was notability, not article content, and notability, if lacking, cannot be established by any amount of heroic editing. Rebb ing 16:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am not stalking him, but I've noticed this newcomer writing unsourced articles and, while not as impatient as others, I agree that most (but not all) were premature. Being somewhat more welcoming when I politely offered some advice on his talk page already festooned with oh-so-friendly deletion notifications. He has not edited for many days now, so I hope he has not been chased away.

And while you may certainly feel otherwise... but when so many sources are available for this completed film simply awaiting release in perhaps 3 weeks, I believe nominating a new editor's article 23 minutes after creation seems a bit hurried IMHO. Thank you for once again for repeating yourself, but you seem to have missed my asking for input from others, and decided instead to rehash your repeated refutation of inclusion guideline by using statements embellished by "essays". Time now for others please, as I feel it is a suitable WP:STUB that increases a reader's understanding of the topic being discussed. And unless policy and guideline are wrong, increasing a reader's understanding is why Wikipedia is here in the first place. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per both WP:GNG and WP:NFF. Confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography. — Cirt (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep about half of the refs Michael has provided seem to be from the International Business Times -- but I'm not aware of any reason why that's a problem. Seems to me to clearly meet WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2016 (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.