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 delete. Discounting the two "Must not be Deleted" because the editors did not add any sources or indeed anything relevant to keeping to the article, and made no argument here. Sandstein 22:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Veeramadevi[edit]

Veeramadevi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested Prod without explanation original reason was "Does not satisfy WP:NFF." This is a future film which has yet to begin principle photography. PRehse (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 15:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 15:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete No indication that principal photography has started and so per WP:NFF, and I quote 'Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles'. David.moreno72 09:36, 6 January 2018 (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.