Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puthiya Mugam (unreleased 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 delete‎ all except Pagaivanuku Arulvai. It was not properly tagged, so deleting this article would have been out of process. ✗plicit 00:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Puthiya Mugam (unreleased film)

[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)

This film is never going to release. Why is it notable? This film is unreleased since 2017. DareshMohan (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF Keep without prejudice, the parameters of discussion have changed since the start. —siro χ o 01:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Siroxo: Why should unreleased films that are only partially filmed (less than 100% filmed) for three or more years be considered notable? DareshMohan (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Tamil Nadu. Skynxnex (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased films may be notable. Here sources tend to focus on Kalaiyarasan, so I'd say Redirect there.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not an exception to WP:NFF. ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 09:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are unreleased and will never release due to years of delay. These films from 2017—2020 have no update.

Comment@DareshMohan: I am not absolutely sure "bundling" so many unreleased/upcoming films in the same Afd is extremely clear nor that it will prove efficient. I would tend to think that each of these films deserves a specific approach. In strictly procedural terms, I see that the Afd tags on other pages lead here without this fact being clearly presented on top of this page (in the actual nomination), and I am not quite certain it should or even can be like this. It will become increasingly complicated to make sure what people are commenting on exactly if distinct Afds are not created, or to know what they comment upon if other pages are bundled into this Afd in the meantime. For instance, my comment above is strictly related to Puthiya Mugam and not to anything else. I suggest to fix this by having one Afd for each film.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Mushy Yank: I think it is fine because all of the films are unreleased for years. Imo, creating 5 more AfD's with the same "This film is never going to release. Why is it notable?" wouldn't make sense either. Remember: unreleased films should not have articles unless the production is deemed notable, which is not the case.

Invitation for @Siroxo: @Raydann: to cast their votes for the other 5 films. DareshMohan (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFF. Unreleased for over six years. Kailash29792 (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFF. aggarwala2727 (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing SNG for film. Okoslavia (talk) 21:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Unreleased film = not notable film. It's as simple as that. A forthcoming film by a notable director with a notable cast with a definite release date, yes - but after three years, I think we're in safe 'not happening' territory and in case it ever does happen, a nice, new article can be unveiled. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General comment: The assertion that "Unreleased film = not notable film. It's as simple as that" is simply not true. There are many unreleased films that are extremely notable according to Wikipedia generally accepted standards. The guideline clearly states: "Similarly, films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." (emphasis mine) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:39, 26 July 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.