Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miley somehow

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. JohnCD (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Miley somehow

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

Non notable film GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:47, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In looking:

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

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

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

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

WP:INDAFD: Miley Somehow Vikram Yoganand Smart Screen Productions UTV Motion Pictures

Keep per meeting WP:NF through New Indian Express, Daily News & Analysis, Times of India, Online Cinema Talkies, Bangalore Mirror. The article can definitely merit through a little editorial attention. Use WP:BEFORE nominator, please. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: In following my own advice, I went ahead and did some work to improve the poor stub which was sent to AFD just 17 minutes after contribution by an inexperienced new editor. Pardon GigglesnortHotel, but this seems just a bit rushed to me, specially when issues were quite easy to address, and being poorly written or sourced are not deletion rationales. Sure, the contributor would benefit from studying MOS:FILM, but we do not delete notable film topics for being poorly written or sourced. I believe to best serves the project when WE instead fix them. Hmmm? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article could be better but this may simply be enough. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 13 May 2016 (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.