Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border 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 redirect to J._P._Dutta#Career. Rounded to redirect slakr^\ talk / 04:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Border 2[edit]

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

WP:NFF. —Soham (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary reports suggested January-February 2014 as the months when principal photography would start, the usual thing for a film promotion and part of pre-production. Its March now and usually when shoot of a film starts, pictures of shooting surface on the net or either some news. None of that has happened, therefore the film hasn't gone into principal photography – failing WP:NFF. The news reports all published around November speculated the start. Had shoot started a confirmation report would have published by the same which is not the case here. So Delete. The article does not have any good sourcing or content so as to incubate. – Soham (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete This film might be notable if it gets released, but right now it is not even clear if it has gone into production. This is clearly too soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Border 2 (film)

WP:INDAFD: J.P. Dutta, Border 2

Redirect without prejudice for now to J. P. Dutta#Career where this planned project can be mentioned and sourced. While plans for the making of this film have received coverage, I have been unable to confirm principle filming. Allow undeletion or recreation once WP:NFF paragraph three is met. Soham? Johnpacklambert ?Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is very little chance that will commence principal filming in the next 4-5 months. Thus WP:TOOSOON is definitely an issue here. Keeping in mind the articles state in mind, I cannot suggest incubation or redirection. – Soham (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon Soham, but both policy and guideline allow that an expected future event may be discussed somewhere, as long as verifiable. The director's plans for his sequels IS receiving coverage,[1][2] and so can be written about (and is) in the article ON that filmmaker. I completely agree it is Too Soon for a separate article, but a redirect of a sourcable topic serves readers by sending them to where they may read about it in context... specially when a separate article is not quite yet merited. It does not matter that the filming might not be immediate, as long as the topic of a future event is discussed neutrally and is properly sourced. I hope you might reconsider as redirects are cheap and in this case improve the project for our readers. See WP:FFCLARIFY. Cheers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:13, 23 March 2014 (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.