Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fugly (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 keep. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fugly

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Unreleased movie, no particular notability about the production. After its released and IF it satisfies WP:NFILM, then try again. Safiel (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support fails WP:NFF. Neutral - Tokyogirl79 has provided a reliable source showing principal photography "has begun today" - i am seeing a lot of not very reliable sources-the other information seems mostly from gossip sites. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, principal photography began in October 2013. They're filming the songs now, which makes it likely that they're probably doing the last few scenes before moving into post production. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert this title back to Wiktionary redirect, delete this article Seems like a non-notable production; if it does gain notability it can easily be added at Fugly (2014 film), where this should be, while the root word should remain a dictionary definition. Nate • (chatter) 00:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm still trying to find sources, but it looks like this has completed its principal photography and has received quite a bit of coverage. It's just that the film's name is bringing up a lot of false positives. I've got a few more places to look, but so far this does look like it might pass NFF. One thing to remember with India's news is that they're not big on overly long articles. A 1-2 paragraph/sentence article is about the equivalent of a 1-2 page spread in a North American paper. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We shall wait for reliable sources. OccultZone (Talk) 08:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Fugly (film)

WP:INDAFD: "Fugly"

WP:INDAFD: "Fugly completed"

Comment: To be clear, the earlier AFD discussions listed above were for the word "fugly" as a neolgism. THIS article is about a sourcable film.[1] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as its production meets WP:NFF paragraph 3 (or at minimum Redirect temporarily to director Kabir Sadanand). This is sourcable as having entered principle filming and as receiving the requisite coverage set by WP:NF. It might even have been completed filming (still checking) with announcement of a release date.[2][3] Move article after a keep or undeletion to Fugly (film). I urge the inclusion of the disambig "(film)" in the title only to prevent false positives when someone in the future says "W.T.F." and begins their own search for sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it seems to meet Wikipedia's reqs for future films. I also encourage name change to Fugly (film). Also note that John Leguizamo apparently made/is making a film called "Fugly!" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1730760/?ref_=nv_sr_1 Orser67 (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2014 (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.