Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanak (2023 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 Draftify. Star Mississippi 19:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanak (2023 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article about a yet to be released film, has been moved back and forth to draft in several instances and has been moved to main yet again despite requests to complete the review process and advice that it is TOOSOON. The only source added since the most recent discussions seems to be mainly about a producer with not much coverage of the film itself. 'Naive' search did not reveal much additional information. Alternative would be to return to draft *again* but to avoid move-warring a discussion is now warranted. Eagleash (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article is not to prove to someone. it is related to a film which has strong source links and references and that’s enough to make this article to stay on main wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 18:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or return to Draft until release. Fails WP:NFF DonaldD23 talk to me 20:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails per WP:NFF, as the topic is WP:TOOSOON and the creator refused it into the draft several times. References are primary and unreliable (although few of them are reliable with QNA type news). Creator seems to be connected to the subject if you take a look on Music section as nothing at all about film's music in any kind of sources. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Notable M.Ashraf333 stop getting into personal edit war as i have monitored this harassment from you from my last several articles,and you seems highly confused where you are telling few of them are reliable but still wants to get it delete where it shows your personal adgenda of letting Pakistani films and bios to nominate for deletion. the sources are enough for this article to stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 06:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Striking duplicate !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rmpwork، I will only respond to your half of the comment and not discuss personal attacks. If I have talked about reliable sources, I have also written that it is Q&A interview type material which is not acceptable under any circumstances. Let the rest of the community decide. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Go and have a clear look, they are not at all QnA they are a complete news links. please maintain your facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 11:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the sources on the article. NYC Guru (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it does not meet WP:GNG. Draftification would be okay as well, since it might meet the criteria at some point.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify as an WP:ATD or Delete. Most of the sources appear to be non-reliable, with insufficient editorial policies. Moreover, the reliable sources appear to fail WP:SIGCOV. E.g., this piece from Daily Pakistan is a routine announcement that focuses upon the plot and cast; this piece from Tribune is primarily dependent on quotes by Shyraa Roy instead of independent direct commentary on the film. Similarly, my WP:BEFORE search could not find sources that are independent, reliable, secondary, and non-trivial/constitute of significant coverage to demonstrate a passing of WP:GNG or WP:NFILM criteria 1. Therefore, IMHO, this upcoming film's production has not been demonstrated to be notable per WP:NFF, but draftification is a viable WP:ATD as upon its release in May, reviews might contribute to notability. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think some sources are salvageable (The Express Tribune interview is one such example) and may be sufficient to warrant notability, although sources need to be reviewed to remove routine coverage; if not, then draftification is the next logical choice, but deletion seems excessive imho Ppt91 (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify until release. Fails WP:NFF. Insight 3 (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify until the film is released because it currently fails WP:NFF. I do not support full-on deletion. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 07:57, 14 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.