Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ek Tha Main


 * 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. The consensus is clear that a full article at this point is premature. I have considered the draft namespace and the redirect options, but decided against them. The article is a stub at present, so I see little need to leave this around in the draft namespace when someone may just want to rewrite the article from scratch. Redirects tend to remain redirects since they don't invite creation of an article as a redlink does, and it is expected that an article will be justified at some point in the future. Nonetheless, if someone does need access to this material for a rewrite when the film is released, contact me or another administrator to have the material restored. Sjakkalle (Check!)  04:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ek Tha Main

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article only promotes a film that has not been released even though the release date stated was in 2013. The film does not meet either general notability or the specific notability guidelines for films. The only sources appear to be press releases. The author of the article appears associated with the studio. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 19:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have no problem with it being re-created when coverage becomes available, but I just can't find any RS to really show that this is notable at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It could possibly redirect to the actor's page, but I'd prefer not to do that since I don't see where filming has commenced at this time - ie, that he's confirmed to be in it, as plans and casting can change prior to principal filming. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   08:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete A film not released is not so notable to have a redirect to some actor's page. --  Fauzan  ✆ talk   ✉ email  08:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * , a redirect and sourced mention elsewhere is exactly as suggested by POLICY for topics that do not yet have notability enough for a separate article.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Move to draft so as not to require a complete rewrite if it gets coverage once it gets released. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:INDAFD: Ek Tha Main Rahul Singh Khagwal Jai Akash
 * WP:INDAFD: Ek Tha Main Rahul Singh Khagwal Jai Akash
 * WP:INDAFD: Ek Tha Main Rahul Singh Khagwal Jai Akash
 * WP:INDAFD: Ek Tha Main Rahul Singh Khagwal Jai Akash
 * WP:INDAFD: Ek Tha Main Rahul Singh Khagwal Jai Akash
 * WP:INDAFD: Ek Tha Main Rahul Singh Khagwal Jai Akash
 * WP:INDAFD: Ek Tha Main Rahul Singh Khagwal Jai Akash


 * Redirect temporarily to main actor Jai Akash as current coverage centers on his particpation and his appearing in all 6 different language releases. And, filming appears to have been underway in July per "is being made in five Indian languages and in English" and now completed per source telling us "this flick which was shot primarily at Mumbai" (past tense). An issue in sourcing is that the working title was the simple and common "100". As sources under its final release name come forward we may even find WP:NFF (paragraph 3) to eventually be met for an early return.   Schmidt,  Michael Q. 22:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.