Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buffoon film


 * 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 keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Buffoon film

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NFILM. Referencing is also atrocious 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Delete per nom; fails WP:NFILM and has no plot section. This has apparently been moved back and forth rather disruptively and has been created under at least 2 other article names. Draft:Buffoon (film) and Draft:Buffoon (film) (2) definitely exist and there may be others. The history suggests that there is intent to create in main despite advice and it may be a case where to 'salt' would be appropriate. Eagleash (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, India,  and Tamil Nadu. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as has reviews in multiple reliable sources already referenced in the article such as Times of India which is acceptable for non-controversial content such as film reviews, Cinema Express which is an outlet owned by New Indian Express a national newspaper, the Film Companion review may be reliable but I can't get it to load. Narrowly passes WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets notability standard. Wide release. Neutral Fan (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Already released and has reviews, satisfies WP:NFILM. Kailash29792 (talk)  08:45, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep – There are conduct issues and content issues involved with this article:
 * The conduct issue is that the originator has been creating multiple copies of this article, in draft space and in article space, disruptively, apparently in order to game the system.
 * The originator appears to be either a conflict of interest editor or an ultra. The good-faith assumption is that the editor is an ultra, and should be cautioned that overly persistent editors are often thought to have a conflict of interest.
 * The principal content issue is whether the article in its current form satisfies film notability.
 * The film has been released and has been reviewed, and the article discusses the reviews. The article passes film notability.
 * Articles for Deletion is a content forum. Articles are not deleted solely because of disruptive editing by their originators.
 * The other content issue is any other drafts or any other versions of the article. They should either be redirected to this article if they are plausible search titles, or deleted if they are implausible search titles used to game the system.
 * Keep, it does appear to satisfy WP:GNG (and that is only after surveying the English language Indian press, note that this is a Tamil language movie so sources are most likely to be found in Tamil). It could use a bit of a scrub but deletion is not cleanup. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Meets NFILM with multiple reliable reviews cited. -- Ab207 (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, Notable, As it was widely distributed and has multiple reliable reviews. Contributor008 (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Remove the references from unreliable sites like Youtube and Twitter. Contributor008 (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.