Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tere Bina Jiya Nahin Jaye

Tere Bina Jiya Nahin Jaye

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

Future film with no evidence of notability Smappy (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is there an Indian reliable source like http://www.variety.com/ where the claims inthe article could be verified? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate article. Set redirect to HHey Gujju. There's a reason why this title is only now getting coverage, as it's actually a stubby recreation of the film article for HHey Gujju (original title)... which itself has significant sourced coverage over an extended period, with its sources toward notability (under the old working title) already present in the HHey Gujju article, and shown as meeting the caveats of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. Now that production has decided to go with a different name as part of the film's production process, what needs to be done is to delete this new title, redirect to the old title, and expand the original to show that it has gone through a name change (adding sources showing that the name has changed). Same film. Same notability. New name. [1], [2], [3]. Old name still has the greatest searchability. Once the newer name is more readily searchable, I will be happy to myself perform a move from old name to new. As it is, the author may not have been aware we already had the topic covered. Perhaps the nom might withdraw and we can be a little WP:BOLD and make the fix. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just worked on the HHey Gujju article to show and source its name change. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect per MQS. —SpacemanSpiff 21:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if this is the new name of this upcoming film, per MQS, then it should be deleted/merged, then the existing article properly moved to the new title -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Makes good sense. I also think a redirect from the old more searchable title to the new one should be left in place after the move. No need to have someone inadvertantly recreate the old. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]