Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P.K.(2014 film)

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.K.(2014 film)[edit]

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

unreleased film that has not started principle photography. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spectacular fail of WP:CRYSTAL. I've seen cometary orbit predictions with more substance. Please hit this with a hammer. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete P.K.(2014 film) has been provided ample reliable sources like Hindustan Times,India Today,TOI etc.Even Rajkumar Hirani has also said he is making this film and shooting will begin mid-2013.There is no uniformity and consistency on Bollywood upcomg film. Like Happy New Year (2013 film) has no sources or references,but no one cares about that. Like that so many films article are on wikipedia. Abhinavname (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will say though, that other articles existing on Wikipedia that are more poorly sourced does not automatically mean that this article will be kept. It just means that the other articles haven't been improved or nominated for deletion.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do have to say that for a film that hasn't started yet, there's an enormous amount of sources for this film. I know that the norm of WP:NFF is to delete articles that haven't yet started filming, but there are a lot of somewhat lengthy articles for this. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I think that at the very least we should either userfy or incubate this.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Forgot to put name 12:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Forgot to put name 15:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Search: PK, Rajkumar Hirani

Weak keep through the persistant and in-depth coverage of this topic which would have it seem a reasonable exception to WP:NFF. Howevem, at the very least we could incubate or userfy for a short time. Point #1: We do already have enough coverage so that we serve our readers to encourage the topic be written of in related articles. Point #2: Outright deletion of such a well-covered topic does not serve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/incubate. I agree with Schmidt- this looks to be one of those rare circumstances that a film meets WP:NFF without being a major Hollywood film and without starting principal filming. If all else fails, this should be incubated so that if/when filming does start by the end of the month, it can be re-added.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 00:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per significant coverage. LenaLeonard (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2013 (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.