Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunterrr 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 Hunterrr. (non-admin closure) ansh666 23:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hunterrr 2 (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)

Movie has not begun principal photography and therefore fails WP:NFILM. According to the article filming was to commence in January 2016, but on searching the most recent article found [1] (July 2016) states that the movie is still in the scripting stage. A case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Jupitus Smart 18:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or Keep: One of the sources says "The sequel is CONFIRMED". It may be possible that the makers of the film have secretly started the shooting of the film. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 05:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to accuse you of anything, User:Mr. Smart LION, but you have been here for quite some time. Yet you continue to make articles about movies which have not yet started principal photography, knowing fully well that its not correct. And when they are up for deletion, you turn up to ask for a redirect as evidenced in [2] and [3]. You have registered a lot of planned movies with redirect pages including Force_3, Housefull 4, Krrish 4, Ishqiya 3, Tiger Zinda Hai etc all of which are only in the planning stages or are just gossips. As recently as 1 April you created an article and re-directed it to one of the actors. Is this some kind of SEO ploy or are you trying to WP:OWN these pages by creating skeletal redirect pages in the hope that you will remain the page creator when the article is re-instated as and when the principal photography begins. Whatever it is, read WP:CRYSTAL to know why we cannot have pages for films which are being 'secretly shot' (and as I mentioned earlier, the last dated reliable reference says that the movie is still in the scripting stage - and my reference is dated 1 year after yours, meaning the film is not being 'secretly shot') and why therefore it requires deletion.Jupitus Smart 06:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will not create articles on films which have not commenced principal photography. I very well know that films that haven't commenced shooting can't be created here. I started this process because I see many film articles created whose shooting haven't yet started but they aren't marked for deletion. You might not be knowing that besides mine, there are many Bollywood film articles whose shooting haven't been started. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 13:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do not go searching for Bollywood movies and your article was a co-incidental find. Anyway if you know about Bollywood movie articles that are against site policies, you should ideally take action and nominate them for deletion. Jupitus Smart 15:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hunterrr. With sources like Indian Express, The Times of India, News18 covering this, at the same time with no substantial material on the film, we should for now redirect this to Hunterrr. Redirects are cheap; and people will search the net for Hunterrr 2. Lourdes 16:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Please refer to this discussion before closing - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon (2017 film). It was a similar movie article created by the same user, and had the same problems. That movie is at least slated to start production in May 2017 but there has been no update on this movie (which has probably been shelved, now that the actress has become much more popular than her Hunterrr days). A user strongly argued for deletion in the other oage, citing the arguments presented by me here, and that ended in deletion. I believe that the same metric should be used in this case as well, as a redirect will only prove as an incentive for more such gossipy articles by users, undermining the encyclopedia's policies. Jupitus Smart 19:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hello Jupitus Smart, I've read the Afd above. I appreciate the points you've put forward. If I may, as per general precedent at Afds, redirects should be preferred than deletion when there is a plausible search term. It doesn't matter if Hunterrr 2 has been shelved or not (there is no evidence of that though), with leading news sources covering the term, there is enough logic for redirecting the term to Hunterrr. In an Afd, there's no gain simply deleting articles. Redirect achieves considerable ends. Not only is the contentious non-notable material out of Wikipedia, but any interested reader gets redirected to the closest notable page. Closing Afds as redirects in such cases are supported by our guidelines and policies; please see WP:ATD. Thanks. Lourdes 00:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its good that you think differently. But I stand by my views that such a ploy by an experienced user to own articles by exploiting loopholes in the system, should be rewarded only with a delete as was felt by User:Winged Blades of Godric in the other AfD. It has been about a year since any news about the movie came about, making it doubtful that anybody would even search the term, unlike Dragon which has mainstream actors and was always in the news, before it ended up getting deleted. Cheers. Jupitus Smart 03:05, 26 April 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.