Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Goa

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Goa. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Goa|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Goa. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to India.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Goa/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Articles for deletion

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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups

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

Fails WP:NFILM. After multiple draftifications of the name variations this has been created under, an attempt at a redirect, now here we are. Nothing notable about the production and film still has no release date. Was scheduled for April and now nothing is confirmed. Would suggest a redirect or draftify but again, those WP:ATD have been explored. CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Previous deletion discussion here under one of the alternative names. Also see Draft:Toxic (2025 Film) (declined in November), Toxic (Indian film), Draft:Toxic (film) and Draft:Toxic (2025 Indian film). Other drafts have been merged or deleted under other names and I cannot find the history of those at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the main difference from the past AfD is that the film has commenced and completed filming. The big question though is if the coverage is in-depth enough to pass NFF. Unfortunately a lot of pre-release coverage (unless it's some majorly huge blockbuster) tends to be based on a couple of press releases. India related films seem to be particularly prone to this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although I will say in this version's defense, this is better sourced than the one declined at AfC and the one that was previously deleted at AfD. It's all going to depend on whether the sourcing gives a good depth of coverage. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100% better referenced. The issue, which you talked about, is the quality of the press. A lot of this is churnalism, pre-release promotion, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I don't see significant coverage about the production and since it has not yet been released (and as of now we don't know if it will - the best clue is "possibly" December 2025) so there isn't even a review for it. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously an upcoming film from any industry won't have reviews and production details will be limited to avoid spoilers. Release date changes are common, even for Hollywood films such as Mickey 17, which had it's release date changed thrice (no "significant" production details are available for that film as well, and yet, that article has existed since principal photography began 3 years ago in 2022). Coming to Toxic, it has similar coverage beyond press-releases, including in the American media such as Variety, Deadline, The Hollywood Reporter, to name a few. Not that Indian cinema needs validation from the West, but that sadly seems to be the case with Wikipedia. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Indian cinema shouldn't need validation from the West. However, it must still have significant coverage that shows how it is notable. Mickey 17 is an WP:OSE argument. Looking at the press for this film which you cited above, they are all based on press releases and are simple churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing even the American media houses like Variety, Deadline Hollywood, and The Hollywood Reporter of paid "churnalism" when it comes to reporting on Indian cinema? Also, OSE is an essay and not a policy, and as valid as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am making that accusation. But, keep in mind that churnalism doesn't need to be "paid." I think you are making an accusation that I am pulling things out of my rear with the IDONTLIKEIT comment. If so, please remember WP:CIVIL. If I read that wrong, then my apologies in advance. As far as OSE, one cannot dismiss it just for being an essay. It is widely cited and applies regularly in deletion discussions.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IDONTLIKEIT is as "widely cited" as OSE and is not a CIVIL violation. Even so, my statement was "OSE is an essay and not a policy, and as valid as IDONTLIKEIT", which in no way was directed *at* you. I have been perfectly civil with you, so please do not accuse me of doing things that I'm not doing. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not misinterpret what I said. I never accused you of being uncivil. I merely explained how I interpreted what you said and actually apologized in advance if I read it wrong (written words are hard to interpret at times). --CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've taken a look at the sourcing and offhand, I have to say that I'm going to say that I'm kind of undecided on whether or not this passes NFF. The basic question we need to answer here is this: if the film were to never release, is the current sourcing enough to pass NFF?

The film industry in India is particularly prone to churnalism. That's kind of a fact of life, so when it comes to sourcing we can't just look at the quantity and publications - we have to look at the content as well. Offhand, I can't help but notice that the coverage is predominantly pre-filming. There's a decent variety of coverage here, as it's not too overly repetitive (ie, not all based on the same handful of press releases). However I'd like to see more coverage of the filming process, as it's not really resolving that basic question/concern. The Variety source is OK, however coverage of trailers tends to be seen as routine unless we have some sort of reaction to the trailer - like a review of sorts. That's missing in this Variety source, however I will note that I found it in this Collider source.

Offhand I'd like to look for more here. It's heartening to see that coverage for this is still rolling in, even with the absence of a set release date. It's not a situation where filming ended and there's just almost complete silence - the current coverage does give off the impression that it will release eventually. The question here is whether or not any of that coverage contains sourcing that could help show this passes NFF. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film clearly meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for films (NFF), thanks to the wide range of independent and credible sources covering it. Outlets like Variety and Collider are reputable and provide detailed information about the film's production and promotion. Yes, a lot of the coverage so far focuses on pre-filming, but that's completely normal for any film, especially one that's building buzz. Early coverage is part of how films establish their presence in the public eye. And here's the thing, as mentioned by ReaderofthePack, the coverage is still coming in, even without a set release date. There are no signs or credible reports indicating that the film won't release, so assuming otherwise would be speculative and just assumptions. On the contrary, the ongoing and consistent media attention suggests strong interest and momentum behind the project. The argument about 'churnalism' in the Indian film industry also feels overly broad. Sure, some media outlets might lean promotional, but you can't paint all coverage with the same brush. Notable global names like Variety, Deadline, Hollywood Reporter and Collider have written about this film. Finally, Wikipedia shouldn't focus on predicting the future and focus documenting what's notable right now. And based on the sourcing and interest this film has already generated, it's clearly notable. Shecose (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not all coverage is painted with the same brush. However, it is not an overly broad assertion since the community has come to a consensus and created an information section about it called WP:NEWSORGINDIA. It is also concerning that you have bludgeoned the process in order to help promote the film. Wikipedia is not here as a promotional tool for film studios. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We both edit warred to maintain our views regarding this article. Repeatedly re-draftifying the article after objections from others and redirecting it thrice despite being edited by multiple editors without any discussion, is also a significant concern, also shared by others in the 3RR. You have also acted in a hostile manner towards me by reporting me in various places for questioning your actions while preaching cooperation and civility to others (as above). Now that we are here, let's focus on discussing the article and its notability. The article clearly meets the notability criteria based on the provided references. Also, I'm not sure how much you understand about films and fandom culture in India. Fans often get excited about their stars and their films, leading them to search and edit in this space. However, this doesn't necessarily mean they are promoting the film. Shecose (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't wish to write a wall of text to explain how WP:CIR. I understand where you are coming from as with only 77 edits it is hard to understand all of the guidelines that relate to notability and AfD discussions. I will just say if you feel I have acted in a hostile manner, take the issue to WP:ANI where it can be handled properly. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The two Keep !votes may not have taken into account the following restrictive sentence in the film notability guideline:
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.
. The sources establish that there is significant coverage that the film is upcoming. They don't talk about the production itself, of a film that appears to be in post-production limbo. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify- There was very little question about whether this was the rare exception of an unrelease film that satisfies notability before I viewed the references. There is no doubt. The references are almost entirely press releases and advance publicity about the film. Wikipedia is not a medium for advance publicity about films. An unreleased film is notable only if production itself has been notable, and that is not the case. The references are not about production, but about the upcoming film, and as such they have aspects of advertising and of crystal balling. Very few of the references are independent, and very few of them are secondary. None of them are significant coverage of production. The Variety reference is the closest, but none of the references satisfy general notability for an unreleased film.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary	Counts toward GNG about production itself.
1	www.indiatoday.in	A long blurb about the upcoming film.	No. A press release.	Yes, but not about production	?	No	No
2	timesofindia.indiatimes.com	An announcement about plans for the film.	No. A press release.	Not really.	No	No	No
3	timesofindia.indiatimes.com	A teaser about various films.	No. Reads like a series of press releases.	No.	No	No	No
4	timesofindia.indiatimes.com	A teaser that isn't really about much	No.	No.	No.	No.	No
5	timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment	A teaser about the cast.	No.	No.	No	No.	No
6	timesofindia.indiatimes.com	Announcement of the film.	No	No	No	No	No
7	www.newindianexpress.com	A puff piece praising the technology being used for production.	Clearly not.	No, because the praise overwhelms the description.	?	Yes	No
8	www.cinemaexpress.com	Description of a birthday party	No.	Not about the film.	?	No	No
9	www.pinkvilla.com	Announcement of delay of release of film.	Probably not.	Not really.	?	No	No
10	www.ndtv.com	A press release about a cast selection	No.	Not about production of the film.	?	No	No
11	www.moneycontrol.com/entertainment	A promotional account of the upcoming film.	No	About the film, but not about production of the film.	?	No	No
12	www.telegraphindia.com	States that production has started.	No	Yes	?	No	No
13	deadline.com	Announcement that filming has started and about the cast.	No. Another press release.	Not about production.	Yes	No	No
14	www.livemint.com	Announcement tha the teaser has been released.	No. A press release.	No	?	No	No
15	www.pinkvilla.com	A refutation of rumors that the film is being shelved.	No. Information from the director.	Yes, but not about production.	Yes	No	No
16	www.news18.com	Announcement of the delay of the release of the film.	No.	Not really.	No	No	No
17	www.pinkvilla.com	States that the release will be in December, and about international showing.	No Information from the director.	Not really.	Yes	No	No
18	www.timesnownews.com/entertainment-news/kannada/the-toxic-journey-begins-rocking-star-yash-article-112363174	A puff piece about the film and the star-director.	No. Reads like a press release.	No	?	No	No
19	Variety	A discussion of the upcoming film.	Yes.	No.	Yes	Yes	No
20	collider.com	A discussion of the teaser.	Yes.	No.	Yes.	No	No

This film seems to be in post-production limbo and will probably be released sometime. If this article is moved to draft space, when the film is released, reception information can be added. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Using a vague term like "generally" is inappropriate for a film that has garnered such significant interest and extensive coverage, even on a global scale. This list focuses entirely on the production aspect (and not accurately), while conveniently ignoring the overwhelming number of references about the film. With such extensive coverage in major publications in India and abroad, the start of principal photography should be sufficient to meet the NFF requirements. Additionally, the production updates for the film are ongoing, and here are some examples. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/kannada/movies/news/toxic-yash-kiara-advani-begin-the-crucial-bengaluru-schedule-of-the-film/articleshow/117680081.cms https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/others/nayanthara-cast-in-yash-geetu-mohandas-toxic-confirms-akshay-oberoi-101737713470378.html https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/news/south-cinema/yash-kiara-advani-shoot-extensive-dance-number-toxic-report/ Shecose (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And yet all three references you cite fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA and as such are unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for draftify as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not sure I agree with all the conclusions in the sources assessment above. I rather concur with ReaderofthePack's general comment. And my answer to their question is Yes. Should production and even coverage stop now, the film would still be notable in my view, given bylined articles exist covering its cast, premise, filming, associated events (etc, which all are part of production history); other sources keep coming, diverse in scope, approach, depth and quality. Example: https://in.mashable.com/entertainment/88431/yashs-toxic-in-trouble-makers-receive-notice-for-illegally-cutting-down-trees-during-movies-shoot-re Not fiercely opposed to Draft or redirect, if that is really considered the best outcome but opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 19:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Goa and Karnataka. -Mushy Yank. 19:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete. Film has not reached post-production yet from the reports this month and is still in the making and the release in April 2025 has been postponed to undecided date. It is better to keep the film in Draft till the film is in post production stage or close to release date to get more sufficient coverage to meet WP:NFILM. Even better to wait for release when undoubtedly many critical reviews can be added. RangersRus (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure about the above claim of the Western sources which don't have much to do with the Indian cinema collectively being "churnalism". In any case, many national and international sources have reported on the film. Whether or not it gets released is irrelevant; the film has received significant media coverage to make it notable in the present. FrB.TG (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2025 (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.