Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning: This is also done with the guidelines for accepting drafts via AFC process.  However, another editor questioned my acceptance with the opposing question of this article not meeting GNG, as well as a prior work of socks.  I told him to take it to AFD for a formal discussion yet he chose to ignore that and sincerely wanted to investigate more.  The problem is that there haven't been any problem I can see about this article and being created via AFC is a handful way of seeking a second review otherwise opinion.  I have brought it here for a formal discussion, and still maintain keep ing the article.  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  21:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film , Television ,  and Pakistan .  Safari Scribe Edits!  Talk!  21:11, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] SafariScribe , Sorry, but I want to remind you of two points:  1) The article wasn't created via AFC and wasn't even submitted for review.  2) I didn't sincerely wanted to investigate more .  As I mentioned on your tp , this AFD was unnecessary and I have little hope it will result in deletion.  As I've mentioned on your tp, the AFD process can now feel like a lottery.  Anyway, you could have sent it back to the draft namespace,  but you decided to take it to AFD, which was your choice.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 21:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : I see no issue.  It meets WP:NFO criteria #1 and WP:NFILM /GNG in general (see: [10] [11] [12] [13] etc.).  This is perfectly fine in mainspace from what I can see.  The purpose of AfC is "[...] to identify which submissions will be deleted and which won't."  I imagine this article will survive deletion because of the amount of coverage it has received.  (Semi-)unrelated, I would not recommend moving an article accepted by AfC back to draftspace: Although it doesn't technically violate WP:DRAFTOBJECT (because in this case the reviewer would have been the one to move it back), it could very easily confuse the newer editor who created it.  C F A 💬 22:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : I don't plan to vote for deletion because I don't want others to think I'm on a deletion spree, but I do want to point out that the article was created in violation of the WMF Terms of Use's prohibition of UPE.  The fact that it was created by a WP:SLEEPER account as well SPA Wahab98 ( talk · contribs ) who has been trying to create an article on this topic since joining WP back in 2022, ( see this , this , this ) leads me to believe  involvement of WP:UPE.  The fact that different WP:UPE IPs ( Special:Contributions/217.165.8.38 and Special:Contributions/223.123.5.5 ) started editing and defending the article as soon as it was moved to the main namespace and the fact that articles on the same topic have been repeatedly created under different titles by different accounts associated with different UPE sock farms such as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StayCalmOnTress (Nauman335), Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taiyabi/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scudo Lives Once/Archive at Draft:UmroAyyar A New Beginning , Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning , Draft:Umro Ayyar - A New Beginning , Draft:Umro Ayyar- A New Begining etc. I really have no issue with an article on this topic being created, but it should be done by an established editor with a credible editing history, not by a WP:SLEEPER/SPA Wahab98 .   — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 22:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And not only on this wiki, but the same WP:UPE sock farm recently resorted to creating an article on this topic on the Simple EN WP, out of desperation.  — Saqib ( talk I contribs ) 20:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It's basically a start-class article at this point, but enough reviews noted that appear to be from good sources to meet notability.   I've removed a bit of the gratuitous name-dropping and fluff, at this point, I doubt there's much junk from the UPE editor.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 00:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Saqib's reservations are genuine but I think the topic is notable.  We can neutralize this to avoid UPE concerns. -- Ameen Akbar ( talk ) 21:00, 16 July 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep