Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thalapathy 67

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. SpinningSpark 15:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thalapathy 67

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Upcoming film that does not meet the requirements of WP:NFF. No reliable independent coverage of the film production yet, only announcements. Does not have a 'confirmed' release date either.

Propose to incubate in draft until it meets the notability guidelines. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Ab207 (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to WP:NFF, Films have to be confirmed by reliable Sources and principal photography should've begun before Creating its own Article.

Film has been confirmed and the official cast list has been released https://www.moviecrow.com/News/31651/thalapathy-67-mysskin-gautham-menon-arjun https://twitter.com/Dir_Lokesh?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor https://www.123telugu.com/mnews/thalapathy-67-character-artists-details-revealed.html And With the Movie Pooja Shooting has begun officially. https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/tamil-cinema/vijay-trisha-come-together-for-pooja-ahead-of-thalapathy-67-shoot-fans-react-101675262440943.html https://twitter.com/UrsVamsiShekar/status/1620762831145811969?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet KCCian24 (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NFF goes onto to say "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." This has not been demostrated either by the article, nor the sources.

Merely writing a line 'Principal photography commenced on 2 January 2023' does NOT meant the criteria. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the film may not be "notable" yet, it seems inevitable given its well-known cast that it will be noteworthy upon its release. It'd be silly to delete the article knowing that it will have to be re-created soon. I propose the article be left intact and improved as new information is released. Philomathes2357 (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

may not be "notable" yet- Indeed, please see WP:CRYSTAL. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it's self-evident that the movie is noteworthy (see the updated information released since this discussion begun). It would be silly and counterproductive to delete an article that we all know will have to be re-created. Let's not allow a word-for-word literal interpretation of policy interfere with basic common sense. Philomathes2357 (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Policy exists for a reason and we cannot make exceptions at our will. Also, there's no need to delete and start over. We could drafting this and submit it to AfC once ready. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Et tu, ~~Brutus~~ Ab207? Yes, the article isn't in the best shape, but it can benefit from more sources. And a Vijay film is definitely the most high-profile and therefore satisfies WP:NF. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point as well. Articles like these need to be developed in the draftspace, not mainspace. "definitely the most high-profile"-ness must be shown in the article, not just said. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If shooting has began (as it suggests), then it satisfies WP:NFF.--The Doom Patrol (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the NFF carefully, confirmation of shooting is a necessary but not sufficient condition. The production itself should be notable to satisfy NFF which is not demonstrated here. -- Ab207 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Countless errors and issues in the page. Please delete and start fresh after the title has been revealed tomorrow. Or at least give some protection on the page as everyone is vandalizing Wallflower2048 (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Keep arguments are weak, fail to take proper consideration of notability guidelines, and rely on speculation. The keep arguments have all been rebutted solidly, using actual, policy and guideline based arguments. This was definitely way WP:TOOSOON. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad Wiki isn't a paying job or way of life for numerous editors who may not have noticed this article. Hopefully they will notice when the title releases today, and they will increase the article size then. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More size ≠ more notable.

The non-delete votes are still based on such reasoning as "wait and see if it becomes notable", "per the reliable sources", "merge based on some speculation from Instagram". None are yet to address WP:NFF at all, which is the relevant notabilty criteria here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 04:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing we are looking at a relist here. By "none are yet to address NFF at all", I meant: None have properly addressed the actual requirements of NFF. Some have addressed it, but have avoided parts which would challenge the notability of this article. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has 20 sources. Is that not enough? Or are more details needed? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: From the official producer of the movie - the movie has been titled Leo (and the article's title changed as a result. A 2 minute 49 second promo has released confirming the film and release date. Another update a few hours earlier confirmed the second schedule of filming. All signs are on to it being a noteworthy production (as shown by the 571k Youtube Views announcing the title in 10 minutes as well) and if we can further contribute to the production tab under the present article, I think we could easily convey the same. Athu1 11:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the above points contribute to notability. We need WP:INDEPENDENT coverage, not official info. -- Ab207 (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And YouTube views do not determine notability, unless it happens to be the most viewed video on YouTube (this one has still got a few billion views to go) Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, do you have some coverage in reliable sources to provide here? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 09:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - title is now "Leo – Bloody Sweet" - per this article. Someone should change the article title. Lots of coverage on this, and even an official release date (19 October 2023). Wes sideman (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, at least one reliable source covering this film. @Wes sideman: Got any more? And does that meet the requirements of WP:NFILM? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, @Mako001:, you know how to do this. Wes sideman (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wes sideman: And does this meet WP:NFF? Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 04:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - upcoming film of a superstar which is significant and big budget. Valiaveetil (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFILM doesn't mention "superstar" or "big budget" as criteria for notability. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the film has not been released yet, let's wait and see if it goes well at the reception, keep up, you have enough sources. GeogieTax (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with lokesh cinematic universe as it is speculated to have relations to "movie:vikram" though it is not confirmed
https://www.instagram.com/p/CoPnV7OB-XI/?igshid=NjcyZGVjMzk= Nkwp321 (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reliable sources. NYC Guru (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more discussion about whether there are sufficient reliable sources for an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I count 20 references to 9 different sources. I think we'd all agree that more are sure to come. I propose that the article be kept. And if there's a problem in regards to sources, it can be addressed in the article's talk page. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies the criteria of WP:NFF. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:07, 16 February 2023 (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.