Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rana (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. —SpacemanSpiff 05:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rana (film)[edit]

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

It is a shelved film ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 10:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – The film's principal photography and the initial schedule of shoot are enough to prove the notability. The film's pre-production works have received adequate media coverage. In addition, some reports have stated that the film has only been delayed and there are indications that Eros International is planning to release the film in 2014 —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete — it's possible that this film will be dropped. No official word on the film to take off anytime soon. All sources that suggest the positive likeliness of this film's production are unverifiable. It's probably better to have it deleted. Numerous films which have finished filming but have not yet been released have pages on Wikipedia. Rather not make that list grow with Rana, which didn't complete anymore than one schedule. EelamStyleZ // TALK 16:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This film appears to have the same status as Marudhanayagam, but I finally feel that the article contains large info about Rajini's ill health - an unforgettable event in his life. In that case I think we can keep the article instead of delete. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if you read the article, this is akin to a planned U.S. movie having included Robert Redford, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, etc. in the pre-production cast list. Clearly notable, and well referenced. --Soman (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sometimes films can become notable even if they never release and this is one of those rare films. There are some sources on the page that would be considered dodgy by WP's standards, but most of them are from places that we'd consider usable, such as NDTV. This has received a lot of coverage, probably because it has a pretty notable cast. That's not a reason in itself to keep, as notability is not inherited, but I can see where that aspect has gotten the movie the coverage it has. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:40, 21 October 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.