Talk:Poovarasam Peepee

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Poovarasam Peepee article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 May 2014. The result of the discussion was keep.

Film: Indian

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.

India: Cinema Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).

Question about prose

In American English the phrase "debutante" refers to a young woman who has reached the age of maturity, and is being introduced to society. The usage is almost always used to refer to social status. In your usage here, do you mean to indicate that this is Halitha Shameem's fist film? If so the language should probably read "film written and directed by newcomer Halitha Shameem," or something like that. Prof. Mc (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is her directorial debut film according to this source. So I have rewritten it as "newcomer". Kailash29792 (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks. I do think it should be removed. But if the consensus is to keep it, I think it should look as good as possible. Prof. Mc (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for Deletion

This is an unreleased film, and as such does not meet the standards for Notability. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28films%29#Future_films.2C_incomplete_films.2C_and_undistributed_films

"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. 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." Prof. Mc (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To formally nominate this for deletion, please follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased films have articles too! As per WP:NFF, principal photography must have commenced for future films. And filming for this film is completed. A The Hindu, a Sify and a The Times of India link have been included, which make "more than a passing mention" about the subject. With at least three "reliable" "sources", "Independent of the subject", it surely meets the standards for Notability! Prod deletion is not allowed here, since it is an existing film, therefore I am removing the notice! Veera Dheera Sooran (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:PROD is for uncontroversial deletion. Someone can still use the AFD process. 331dot (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. I'm convinced, and happy to be convinced. Prof. Mc (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]