Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meidan-i-Noor


 * 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   redirect to Tuesday (film).  MBisanz  talk 01:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Meidan-i-Noor

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

Hoax/spam for forthcoming film. Beyond Wikipedia mirrors and publicity for the film, there are only two Google hits, neither of which are reliable sources. chocolateboy (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to Tuesday (film) actually this subject is not a hoax, but an article about the gem that was the object stolen in the film Tuesday (see here). However the article about this fictional gem itself makes no mention of the film... and we certainly don't need an article about the gem that is longer than the article about the film. Let's set a redirect.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I did mention that it's spam for the film (click the Google link), though there's precious little evidence that the stone has ever existed (hence "spam/hoax"), other than one amateur site (two of the four Google hits are Wikipedia mirrors), and, of course, the bulk of the article chronicles the stone's fictional afterlife. chocolateboy (talk) 08:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a good call, specially since the article itself makes no mention of the film.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 15:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TravellingCari  04:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete/redirect -- I am not absolutely certain that objects of this sort in what appears to be a minor movie are appropriate for even a redirect, though it should be mentioned in the article on the film. DGG (talk) 18:49, 9 October 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.