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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abhi Nahi Toh Kabhi Nahi (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)

No sign that this "upcoming" film ever started principal photography which is the requirement for a standalone article about a film per WP:NFF. The existing sources only mention early casting choices and some of them say that the film was due to be released in February 2016, but that does not appear to have been the case. (Especially since the article was created in March, 2016, and it was still "upcoming" then.) There is no significant coverage in independent sources, so WP:GNG is also not met. Most of the search hits are news blurbs from 2015 stating that one of the actors would not appear in this film,* which is not exactly encyclopedia material.bonadea contributions talk 12:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Not to be confused with Sir Not-Appearing-in-this-Film.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 12:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 12:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete the film doesnt pass WP:NFILM. If we consider for general notability criteria, all of the references I could find are press releases. These references are vague too. One ref that i could find was about a notable actor's sister getting a role in this film, which was not about the film too. The film had just one passing reference in that source. As the film lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, it also fails general notability criteria. Also, per the rationale provided by nominator. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• draftifyNotable movie which will pass GNG easily but TOOEARLY to have an article. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Harshil169: erm... How can it be notable if it doesnt pass GNG? —usernamekiran(talk) 16:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Usernamekiran, It received coverage in multiple independent reliable sources which are enough to pass GNG but movie is not launched yet. Hence, we should draft it. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Great – would you mind posting those sources here, or even better, add them to the article? --bonadea contributions talk 17:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

undefined*::::Bonadea, they’re given in article. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 22:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Harshil169: WP:NFILM, and WP:GNG are different from each-other. A film doesnt have to pass both the guidelines. GNG can be applied to everything including, but not limited to persons, schools, and films; whereas NFILM is a subject specific guideline - only for films. But this film doesnt pass GNG. It is not necessary for a film to have begun photography or released iff it passes GNG. We always have many article for unreleased films (category:2021 films). We also have articles on "dream projects" that are not even going to be proposed, or about failed proposals, or about failed projects. Nothing else matters if the topic passes GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 10:35, 11 December 2019 (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.