Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gidh

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gidh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The production status of film is unknown. The page shows no notability. It was started back in 2011, since then the film had no release date. So this page should be deleted for now and could be created later when release date is disclosed. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or userfy until released.--Rpclod (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Weak keep as ,even though this project is slow moving, we have confirmation of filming having begun and the topic is receiving coverage to meet WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to userspace for now (considering both delete and keep in that sense) - Indeed the film hasn't received much good coverage since then with News finding some so I'm torn between because this is the case a lot of times but I think moving it to userspace until confirmed release is good (article created since 2011 saying "upcoming" is very concerning). SwisterTwister talk 20:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to userspace would be useless as page creator himself is not active since April 2013. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's always a possibility of a willing user but, in that case, it's probably better to delete the article for now considering the slow production. SwisterTwister talk 06:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article should not be deleted. Perhaps the announcement is drawing near.^{Published on June 15, 2015} While good faith should be assumed, it appears that intention behind this nomination is to rewrite or recreate the page to bag the credit.  sami  ^talk 13:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its not about "bagging credit". It's about creating the article on the right time and then managing it too. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Umais Bin Sajjad: I apologize for the strident remarks but the film has been confirmed by reliable sources and the article should be kept per WP:NFF.  sami  ^talk 08:59, 17 June 2015 (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.