Singham Again: Fails WP:NFILM .  Classic example of notability based on announcements and press releases.  Announced in 2017, official title in 2022, filming began in September 2023 and an announcement of release for August 2024.  References show it is filming but nothing showing it is substantially complete and per NFILM, we have seen many films delayed so nothing to tell this is actually going to be released in August.  Many references are unreliable or churnalism so fails WP:GNG as well.  Would recommend draftify but previous film related draftified articles are simply moved back to mainspace shortly thereafter and we wind up right back here so not sure if it is an acceptable WP:ATD .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:23, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India .  CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or Draftify .  This is another case of a movie article created way ahead of undecided release date and not even reached post-production stage.  Too early to have an article in namespace.  RangersRus ( talk ) 03:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect or Merge to Cop Universe as film is still under production and a part of that franchise that is still not covered under post-production.  SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 18:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - as per nomination.  Krishna Dahal ( talk ) 04:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - deleting/draftifying major Indian films such as this only gives ammunition to socks to create more of a mess, as we've seen countless times before.  The film is currently filming, just like major Hollywood films as Venom 3 or MI:8 (both of which were also delayed many times).  The article, of course, can be improved with better referencing so tags should stay.  Krimuk2.0 ( talk ) 09:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for the comparisons.  Of course, on a cursory glance those appear to meet WP:GNG while this film does not.  Also, why would we reward socks by keeping pages that do not yet meet guidelines.  This one likely will, but falls within WP:TOOSOON .  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not rewarding them at all. I'm only thinking from the perspective of readers who would want to read up about a big upcoming film. We shouldn't let them suffer due to the follies of socks. Krimuk2.0 ( talk ) 06:13, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The article is well sourced and meets WP:NFF since the filming section is comprehensive. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It would not meet NFF based on the content on the page. It would need to meet it based on where filming is currently at and the reliable sources that support it. It could possibly meet GNG but most of the references are simply churnalism that I see. Maybe I missed something? -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 20:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Times of India is not completely non-RS, it can be used for general, non-contentious info like entertainment.  See WP:TOI .  Kailash29792 (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , or in worst case scenario draftify it.  Personally I see no reason for deleting, because it is well-sourced regardless of whether it is a 'big movie' or not.  Yes, it could be delayed again, but some other major productions around the world get delayed as well; that alone is not ground for deleting.  And as another user pointed out, given that there are some well-known Indian actors among the cast, deleting it could potentially create an opportunity for socks/system abusers to recreate the article again and again, albeit with much less quality.  Keivan.f Talk 18:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep based on preponement.  This is a major/popular Indian film not sure why it was deleted.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 07:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .   Given the scale of the film and it's coverage an article is appropriate at this time.   Sure it could be redirected/merged to Cop Universe , but once principal photography has begun and is covered in reliable sources, there really isn't any pressing reason to do so.  Eluchil404 ( talk ) 01:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: While numerically there appears to be a majority for 'keep' here, a number of the keep opinions express arguments which aren't particularly strong in policy.  A couple also suggest draft or merge/redirect as alternatives.  Relisting to establish a clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 09:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft : until more solid news is released, I can't see much now that warrants keeping it in mainspace.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 16:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep for reasons already given above.  It's not just announced as being in development, it's actually actively filming with a set release date later this year.  Even if it ends up getting pushed back, that is not a reason to delete the page.  Plenty of other forthcoming films have pages prior to release.  As it stands, this page already has a substantial section detailing the production with plenty of sources.  There is no reason to delete it.  Happy Evil Dude ( talk ) 01:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nominator, fails WP:NFILM .  Or it should be moved to Draft for its improvement.  Macbeejack ☎ 08:22, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Very comprehensive and insightful.  Your comments are indeed appreciated.  Kailash29792 (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 17:46, 31 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus