Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger 3 (2nd nomination)

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. I am discounting the opinions by Kailash29792 and DeluxeVegan because they violate WP:NPA in that they accuse those who support deletion of "systemic bias" and "ignorance" or "being clueless". If you continue to make such contributions to deletion discussions, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Looking at the remaining "keep" opinions, they mostly fail to address the arguments given in the deletion nomination and by TimothyBlue: at most, they allege that the film is covered in sources, but they do not indicate which specific source establishes the notability of the topic and why. In part, the "keep" opinions are mere speculations about the popularity of the film, which is irrelevant for our purposes. Consequently, the "keep" opinions are unconvincing and must be given less weight when assessing consensus. The article can be undeleted or recreated once the film gets sufficient coverage in reliable sources, presumably if and when it is being released. Sandstein 08:10, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger 3

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Was AfD'd last year, and still no indication this film meets WP:NFILM, let alone WP:GNG. Additionally, there is an existing draft, which should have been worked on and submitted. Would have restored the redirect, but recent discussions at ANI no longer leave that option, since the redirect was contested. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that the article have enough sources and its production is also noticable, so please do not consider it for deletion purposes. User:MNWiki845 (talk) 2:00, 4 April 2023 (IST)

Delete: Fails GNG and NFILM. Sources in the article and BEFORE show only promo, interviews, database style entries, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 04:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the reasoning of Timothy. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:24, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets the criteria described at WP:NFF, despite the current agenda drive to misinterpret it. It's impossible for an unreleased film to have in-depth analysis about it in the press. So unless there is a rule that explicitly prohibits all unreleased films that are currently filming/in post-prod to have not articles, this agenda needs to stop. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFF, "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."

And nothing gets a pass on WP:V and WP:N. // Timothy :: talk 18:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And production becomes notable when filming begins and there is sufficient media coverage on it (which is clearly the case here), and not when there is "in-depth analysis" of unreleased films (which obviously will never happen). Krimuk2.0 (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, just like at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal (2023 film) this is going to be relisted multiple times, and despite getting more "keep" votes, it will be deleted. Why even bother with this charade of asking for people's opinion when they won't be respected? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This AfD is a clear example of systemic bias, and the nominator is clueless about Indian cinema. Pathaan too was dismissed as unnotable by Westerners, but see what happened. And this is set in the same universe. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : It passes WP:NFF, it definitely one of the most notable film of 2023, as per following reasons.
Starcast- It stars two of the superstars of Bollywood-Salman Khan and Shah Rukh Khan

as per Box Office India.

YRF Spy Universe- After the success of Pathaan (film) Spyverse movies would have a good hype.
Tiger franchise is so successful.

Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 08:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are 9 references in the filming section, variably sourced to The Indian Express, The Times of India, Bollywood Hungama, Mid-Day etc., all reliable news outlets. The coverage is not in-passing or trivial and takes note of the film's production schedule across various cities and countries. Films in production are generally secretive about their principal photography to avoid public mishaps or story leaks to the media. You cannot expect in-depth coverage of filming any more than what is already present for any film. Notability should be measured by the same yardstick for Tiger 3 and your average Captain America: New World Order and the like, not be influenced by editors' systemic biases and ignorance. DeluxeVegan (talk) 14:02, 11 April 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.