Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Housefull (2013 Film)

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. Nomination withdrawn and no oustanding !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Salih (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Housefull (2013 Film)[edit]

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

~~no significant coverage in reliable third party sources.~~ does not even have an entry at IMDB (the only two "Housefull" flicks are Ashkay Kumar's 2010 and 2012 sequel) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC) "Withdrawn by nominator" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - The film is already released. References also added.
Anish Viswa 04:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Recently released notable Malayalam movie. Added infobox details and inter-language link. --Jairodz (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Mainstream major film -- Tinu Cherian - 04:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above ★★Retro Lord ★★ 06:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment merely existing is not sufficient criteria for an article. WP:N -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Strong Keep Recent release receiving coverage in sources. WP:NF is met. Appreciations to User:Tokyogirl79 who worked to improve this brand new article. Being a sourced work in progress, it serves Wikipedia to allow it to remain and grow and be further improved. Tossing it does not improve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Schmidt, and others.Shyamsunder (talk) 05:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google search using - Housefull "Tini Tom" -wikipedia - gives 28K results now, including this article from mainstream newspaper The Hindu.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

while there may be a lot of hits that come up on a google search, that doesnt mean anything for the requirement of significant content by reliably published sources. And even the Hindu story that you highlight [1] has one passing paragraph about the film's plot and some fluff about how the actor is excited to get to play the lead. No significant encyclopedic content about the subject of this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

As stated above... we have a brand new article about a newly released film which is beginning to gain recognition and commentary in sources... some good and some bad... and coverage need not be solely about the topic, as long as information is given that can verify information within an article. And another consideration for instance, is that news articles found about the film's stars, such as Jyothirmayi, can and do offer such information, as they speak toward the film as part of the actor's career.IE: see Sify This one merits a WP:CHANCE to grow further over time. While it is laudable to expect perfection, policy does not demand immediate perfection, and actually encourages that we all take part in improving topics perceived by some as imperfect. Tossing a work-in-progress does not always improve this encyclopedia. Interesting consensus about NOT removing WP:IMPERFECT from the policy page is found HERE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK content DOES need to be about the subject of the article. And if you wish to take it to your user space until that someday when there is actual significant content about the subject, that is fine with me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The essay COATRACK is about tells us how an article in Wikipedia should remain focused on the article topic, but does not dictate the content of the sources used. If among its other information, a reliable source verifies that someone is in the film, then per WP:V that source may (avoiding non-film related minutiae) cite film-related information about that actor's inclusion in the film article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the presentation of an actual review from the Hindu, I now support keeping the article and withdraw the deletion nomination. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the withdrawal. With no outstanding !votes for deletion, perhaps someone will speedy keep this now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per significant coverage. NickCochrane (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2013 (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.