Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Peshawar


 * 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 keep. Numerically, the keep and delete camps are about even, but once the film was released, opinion was clearly running towards keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Project Peshawar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See film notability guidelines. Unreleased films are only notable if the production itself is notable, and there is no mention of independent coverage of the production. In the absence of coverage of the production, this article can be viewed as promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - this film has not been released yet, but very soon will be. Would it not be sensible to have an article on this film after the film has been released?Vorbee (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Only if the film is released on schedule, and if the article is updated to include film reviews and similar independent information. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait - See: The News - Mfarazbaig (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep as it seems to be getting more coverage now it has been released. It needs a reception section referencing reviews from reliable sources. Atlantic306 (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- an apparently nn film; I could not find any reviews, just pre-release publicity. Article is 100% promo content which is excluded per WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 18:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: extremely promotional and fails film notability standards. The wait !vote isn't valid by policy because Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball.  If the film turns out to be notable, recreate it.  At the moment it serves only to promote the film before its release.    Dr Strauss   talk   14:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)




 * Keep this (finally) released and screened and reviewed film per meeting WP:NF. The accusation of WP:CRYSTAL by is inapplicable. Wow. Had he read the article in The News  he might have understood the film has screened and received poor review. Again, wow. Even a hated bad film can meet standards.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 09:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * there's no need to be condescending. Furthermore, even if this is the case, the promotional aspect is still unaddressed.    Dr Strauss   talk   10:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Which would be a matter for tagging for tone or other editorial work, not deletion. As for "condescending", if one realizes CBALL is inapplicable or inappropriate, why not strike that error if leaving it could mislead?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As notes, accusations of promotional bias are not appropriate here, if you feel that is problem then the talk page on the article is the place to address it. The talk page is currently empty, why not start a discussion there instead of here where it is not relevant?Egaoblai (talk) 08:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * the promotionalism wasn't the main reason for deletion, the failure of WP:NFILM was. That was just a side-point.    Dr Strauss   talk   08:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Update for early delete voters": Diligent searches find Express  Tribune (2) covers the film's release in a more-than-trivial manner, as does Pakistani Today. And The News International, and Express Tribune (1) speak towards production plans, as does Dawn, and others.. I ask  and others to reconsider that not only was WP:NFF met before this nomination was made, the film has been subsequently released and has requisite coverage to meet WP:NF.  Thank you.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 01:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is a disconnect between the stated film notability guidelines and the way that the guidelines are applied. As written, unreleased films, and this one was unreleased when it was nominated, are only notable if principal photography itself has been notable.  As applied, films are considered notable, at least by some editors including AFD !voters, if principal photography has begun.  This has the side effect of encouraging the creation of promotional articles on films in principal photography, although removing the promotional material would leave a stub or sub-stub.  One remedy would be to change the guidelines to state that films are notable when they are in principal photography, even without any coverage, but that would just encourage promotional use.  Another remedy would be to apply the guideline as written.  Another approach would be to ignore the disconnect, which is what we do.  I am willing to change my !vote to Neutral.  I won't change my !vote to Keep.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - actually promotion and/or advertising is a valid reason for deletion as per WP:DEL4, if there is no encyclopedic content (which this article comes very close to being, in its current incarnation it is little more than a listing). Articles get speedied all the time for advertising, as per WP:G11. That being said, this article has been cut down so as to remove any promotion/advertising, and since it now passes WP:NFILM, I see no reason not to Keep.  Onel 5969  TT me 20:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources provided by User:MichaelQSchmidt who also reminds us that we don't delete just because it's terrible. Otherwise Ishtar wouldn't get an article either. Ifnord (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2017 (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.