Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hal (movie)

Hal (movie) (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)

According to this source, the film was an expected project in 2014. I couldnt find any sources about the film, except provided in the article itself. Fails notability guidelines for films, and general notability guidelines as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 update Following the discussion section below, I have changed my nomination for deletion to a redirect. Kindly see it as the #3 vote, with further explanation. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 13:32, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• RedirecttoHal (film). I couldn't find sources for the current movie to qualify it on either GNG or NFILM. Lourdes 13:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without redirect: this will shortly be speedied db-g5 per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/MANOZ GYAASI. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• RedirecttoHal (film), after the recent events (including sock-puppetry), the redirect page should be indef protected (extended confirmed required) so that socks would not be able to recreate the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HiMr. MacTidy, thanks for the sock puppet investigation details. Irrespective of the outcome of the same, I think this article can be redirected to Hal (film) as that seems a plausible redirect and would help readers in searching out the appropriate article. What do you think? Thanks. Lourdes 17:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would ordinarily have no objection, but that will mean keeping it on watchlist to prevent the next sock from overwriting the redirect. Deleting it means it will appear in the New Pages feed, with scrutiny from NP Reviewers the next time it's created. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: ditto as comment above. I found this article in the new page feed. Overwriting the redirect will bypass it from the feed. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamekiran, Mr. MacTidy, hello once more. Thanks for the response. One could suggest to the closing administrator to redirect the article and do a semi/full-protect for the next six months to an year to ensure that any prospective sock does not mess with the redirect. I would suggest that we keep our readers' as priority in creating this redirect than not create it because of the sock, specially when the protection can help in such cases. Do tell me what do you think of my suggestion. Thanks. Lourdes 00:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You might consider changing your !vote likewise. Warmly. Lourdes 07:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 10:14, 25 September 2017 (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.