Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HHey Gujju


 * 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   no consensus.  So Why  09:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

HHey Gujju

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreleased Bollywood film. No evidence of notability claimed, let alone having evidence provided for. CalendarWatcher (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NFF. Although sources indicate production has begun, the article provides no details on this area. With proposed release 9 months away it is too premature to create a separate article. LeaveSleaves talk 02:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As per the words "Unreleased Bollywood film" being all together. No cut on Bollywood, but the thousands that do get released are enough to manage, no? ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   —PC78 (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, expand, and add additional sources. With respects, Times of India says shooting has begun. More to the point, since WP:NFF states that no film should have an article until principle filming has begun, this now qualifies. So with expansion and additional sourcing, this can be a very nice article per, , , , , , and . The details are available, and I believe in WP:ATD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe in WP:ATD as well, but here's the deal with your sources. Sources 2, 3, 4 give one and the same information. 5 discusses possible plotline, 6 (unreliable source) details casting of an actor. 7 is useless and has no information at all. Neither of these sources, or the ones I've found in my search, provide production details, one of the requirements under WP:NFF. LeaveSleaves talk 05:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If the article fails even WP:GNG with that Google news coverage of actors and producer, then it should have been immediately tagged for speedy deletion and not brought to AfD.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 08:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've said in my very first comment, there are valid sources available informing initiation of production and there is some news coverage present. But it clearly fails WP:NFF from thereon. LeaveSleaves talk 11:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Update Have done a little expansion and a bit of sourcing. More to come. Further, and with respects, WP:NFF states "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Going to WP:N one sees that this article does now seem to meet the criteria of the General Notability Guidelines to thus qualify under WP:NFF.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   — Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  02:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep appears to meet the necessary criteria. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2008 (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.