Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pattinapakkam

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. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pattinapakkam

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

WP:PROMO page created by WP:COI user. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although created by a COI user, User:Editor 2050 gave his best to rewrite it from a neutral point of view. It does pas WP:NFF since shooting began last year and post-production ended sometime this year, although a release date has not been set. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's nothing wrong with the article - it's just a few editors (probably the technical crew/director himself) who make changes to reflect what they want. They obviously have little idea of the usual templates/precedent used for such articles. Editor 2050 (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Editor 2050 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Where is the significant coverage in "multiple" reliable sources? Just because a film is in post-production stage doesn't make it auto eligible for inclusion on encyclopedia. This one seems to be only reliable source about this film (trivial coverage). I tried but couldn't find anything useful about this film and whatever is in the article doesn't help film to reach the WP:GNG standard. The article is currently nothing but an WP:OR toned-down.

I'm open to change my !vote if anyone can find the requisite sources. Anup [Talk] 03:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added several articles that show it meets GNG. All came out in the past week or so, so hopefully it should be fine now. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks good now, Wikimandia did a fine job adding more sources and I see no major issues with the article at this moment. Sro23 (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG - Sufficient neutral secundary sources to meet WP:GNG. I see no problems caused by a COI in the content of the article. -- Taketa (talk) 11:12, 11 December 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.