Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judwaa 2

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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Judwaa 2[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Okay found this one on accident looking at a IP edits-seems to have a messy history and page was started in 2010 for a film that is apparently not even in production yet! I can't find any notability for this yet. Wgolf (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to our notability guideline for films:

"Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date."

This applies perfectly to Judwaa 2, which has been delayed by casting issues. There is no female lead actress yet, and principal photography has not yet begun. Too soon for an article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Another problem article restored by 98.169.246.130. Fails WP:NFF. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Judwaa#sequel where a possible/planned/announced sequel can be spoken of and sourced[1] even when not meriting a separate article. If or when it meets WP:NF the thing can always be properly resurrected. Wgolf? Cullen328? Cyphoidbomb? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me, MichaelQSchmidt. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll yield, though I do worry that this IP user will find it an attractive target for future un-redirects. His edits have been problematic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, redirect but also semi-protect the title (Special:Diff/744866263). Anup [Talk] 22:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.