Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Name Is Khan


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 16:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My Name Is Khan

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Future plans, see WP:CRYSTAL. Shirahadasha (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Moved to AfD for a closer look after turning down a CSD request --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Future blockbuster attributed, but lacks sources and just about everything else. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete As per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - It seems this project has been confirmed and discussed in the news, which means the speculation is verifiable and thus doesn't qualify as WP:CRYSTAL. In addition, the stars are clearly notable, to the point where they have their own (well-sourced) articles, which means this is not exactly a small independent film.  The article is poorly written in its current state, but that's not a good reason to push for deletion. -- jonny - m  t  07:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. I didn't realize that WP:MOVIE contains an explicit clause relating to future films.  I wasn't able to find any sources indicating that filming has begun (the closest I found was a couple of blogs mentioning Augst 2008 as the start of filming), so it fails WP:NFF after all.  However, I stand by my comments about the article not being a violation of WP:CRYSTAL (which is defined as unverifiable speculation), and agree with the suggestions that the existing content be merged to either the director's article or the male lead's article.  After all, the latter was stopped in an airport because his name is Khan. -- jonny - m  t  04:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Delete I was just as clueless about the letter of the law at WP:NFF. It seems to me to be against the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL, since the claims are quite verifiable, but I can live with the consensus. -- RoninBK T C 15:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per jonny-mt but cleanup. I've added some clean-up tags to the article to assist. Redfarmer (talk) 10:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete In its current state, the article reads as a publicist's promotional blurb. Perhaps it was moved to Afd too soon, but as it stands, it definitely needs sourcing and cites. Maybe it could be put back and fixed? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  FIXED  Taken the links provided by jonny-mt, and used those to create a sourced, wikified, and npov stub. Editors, please revisit your !votes -- RoninBK T C 15:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the notability guidelines for future films: "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles." Just because a project is covered does not mean it is at all guaranteed to be a full-fledged film article.  I suggest mentioning the project on the director's article until filming actually begins, where there would be actual film-based content such as production, release, box office performance, critical reaction, accolades, etc.  As it stands, the project has not crossed the threshold into having a future with these details. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The notability guidelines for future films stipulate that a stand-alone article for a film should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. Any verifiable information should be placed at the director's article. The film article can be recreated when principal photography is confirmed to have begun.  Steve  T • C 16:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge When this article first appeared on the new pages list, I sd tagged it; Shira, sensing some potential in it, moved it here. As it stands, the article has been improved significantly and now includes references, context, and notability. However, as several others have remarked, it still flies in the face of WP:Crystal. Why not temporarily merge it with the director's article as suggested? Its current improved state would be a fine addition to that article, and it can easily be moved into real article status once the movie goes public and generates press reviews to support it further. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NFF is completely clear - the article should not exist until a reliable source confirms that the production has already started. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles." Could be moved to the director's page in the meantime. Rsazevedo msg 23:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.   — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 03:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - ARS tagging won't help, the film hasn't started production yet. See WP:NFF, and re-create if production commences. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 00:50, 2 February 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.