Jijo Antony : Lots of promo, interviews, nothing that meets WP:IS, RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  Completely fails BLP as was indicated multiple times at AfC.  Rejected twice at AfC [15] , [16] .  Author then copy paste moved the article to mainspace which was then deleted as sock creation [17] Author blocked as a sock User talk:Godjo J#Blocked for sockpuppetry .  Rejected draft now moved unimproved into mainspace.  Editors have basically been edit warring this into mainspace.  // Timothy :: talk 17:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I just realized that in the variously drafts and moves, the original AfD wasn't closed for this article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jijo Antony but the currect article in mainspace does not have the tags any longer.  // Timothy :: talk 17:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy Very Very Strong Keep for both procedural and guideline-based reasons, at least.  The first Afd was not even closed!  Then the page was draftified in the middle of the process.  Then the draft proposed for Speedy deletion (which was obviously declined (same nominator for both Afd and CSd, fwiw)).  Most of all, this director is notable according to Wikipedia:NDIRECTOR : "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards (..)The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series);" That is very very clearly the case here and that is not going to change, after 2, 3, 4 Afds, closed or not.  He is director of 4 notable films, all having received substantial coverage, and the last in date having won an important award.  According to the guideline, he is clearly notable.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] None of the above is a reason for a speedy keep, all of the above is opinion.  // Timothy :: talk 17:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The fact that you opened 2 Afds for the same article at the same time ?  Well, it should!  But I'll change the wording if that it is the only problem.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] reply to your additional comment all of the above is opinion .  If you think guidelines and facts of the history of your edits are all opinion, it’s disconcerting and so is your total lack of response to the issue of this double Afd. , or the fact that you don’t seem to accept any responsibility for it at all.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 19:11, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You are well aware of the DE around the copy and paste moves of drafts for this article and the reason the AfD tags are misplaced.  // Timothy :: talk 17:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] DE by whom, if I may ask?  And is it not your responsibility as nominator to check all of this and to withdraw if you see something is clearly wrong?  Surely  you understand that 2 Afds for the same page at the same time is not correct.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers , India ,  and Kerala .  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comments 1)The creator of the page was blocked after creation of the page so that it shouldn't interfere with what we think of the page.  2)I am inviting the nominator to withdraw at least this nomination and to reboot the 1st one, or the other way around, as they wish.  Or at least to leave a note there.  But clearly 2 Afds on the same page is not a good idea. - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 17:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment Editors should look at the sock info.  // Timothy :: talk 01:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Source eval : Mushy Yank conveniently forgot to include this: Source eval: Comments Source "Book my show" promo  1.  "Jijo Antony".  Book My Show.  Retrieved 2014-03-14.  Subject one sentence mentioned.  About a film  2. ^ "'Adithattu' Box Office Collection: See how much Shine Tom Chacko's deep-sea thriller earned in three days".  Times of India.  Retrieved 2022-07-01.  Promo interview  3. ^ "The evolution of Jijo Antony".  Gulf News.  Retrieved 2016-04-05.  Promo interview  4. ^ "Prithvi's Darwin is no 'Pokkiri'".  On Manorama.  Retrieved 2016-03-16.  Promo interview  5. ^ "Jijo Antony talks about the risks of shooting the film entirely at sea".  OTTplay.  Retrieved 2021-08-02.  Subject not mentioned.  About a film  6. ^ "53rd Kerala State Film Awards: Complete list of winners".  The Indian Express.  2023-07-21.  Retrieved 2023-07-24.  404 page  7. ^ "ഓരോ സിനിമയും ഓരോ പോരാട്ടങ്ങളാണ്".  Reporter Live.  Retrieved 2022-07-05.  Database entry  8. ^ "Jijo Antony".  FiLMiBEAT.  Retrieved 2022-07-02.  // Timothy :: talk 01:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Mushy Yank also forgot to move over the Delete ! vote from @ Siroχo : [18] , found on the the dup AfD.  Mushy Yank, if you're going to "fix" this duplicate AfD, you should include all the information, not just the points that agree with yours.  // Timothy :: talk 01:21, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What ?  Such inapproriate comments!  I forgot to fix your double Afd?  When I invited you to dot it?  You still did not address the double part, by the way.  And conveniently ?  meaning in bad faith, you realise that?   When I mentioned here that that double venue exists!  And no , I would not move other people's votes (let alone your rationale) to a discussion that I think is procedurally null and that I did not start!  How could one even know what you wanted to do after you had proposed the page for Csd and it was declined?  These are very disconcerting reproaches.  You could have, as I did, talked to the user who draftified it and asked her to undo it.  You did not.  I did .  You preferred to CSd the draft.  Sure.  Your choice.  I made it clear I wanted to move the page to the main then.  The key to this may be when we talked on the talk page of the draft where I said that drafitifying in the middle of an Afd was wrong but your only reply to that was " They are a sock".  You could have said "Ah, yeah, right, I'll talk to that user and restore the page and Afd" No.  You did not.  You preferred to ignore my remark on that point.  Your choice.  I mentioned it twice on the TP of the user who had draftified it.  I thought the Afd was "nullified" in the process and was surprised you had not added anything to the page of the 1st Afd at least for information; it was very easy to fix or at least to TRY, and I invited you repeatedly to do it after I saw you wanted to follow this path, but apparently you prefer to blame everything on me for some reason.  Sure.  And if you want to ping @ Siroxo : , do it with their correct user name, or they won't be notified.  I am also pinging @ Liz : , who had relisted the Afd, before you accuse me of not having done it, conveniently of course.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 07:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jijo Antony to let this one run.  I was the admin who initially p-blocked the article creator, but as this is just clerking I do not see it as an issue.  I will not ! vote on content/merit.  Star Mississippi 15:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] and apologies for briefly leaving the article without an AfD tag.  It has been restored.  Would someone please feed the gremlins Star Mississippi 15:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete current version.  I am still not sure why an old rejected draft was moved into article space by User:Mushy Yank .  There is a better version available but we need to get rid of this one first.  Deb ( talk ) 20:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Not sure I understand.  @ Deb You do remember you are the one who directed me to the draft when I was asking you to undelete a better version, don't you?  Which better version are you talking about?  Available where ?  If that is the case, is it not simpler to modify the page so that the better version is the one users can ! vote about?  At the very least, please identify it so that we can make up our mind.  I never thought Afds were about deletion of versions .  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 21:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] See Deb's talk page, where she identified the better version as that of October,  6. Thanks.  I will check.  For the record, I incorrectly assumed that Deb had moved the page to draft during the 1st Afd.  She just speedy deleted it yesterday, leaving only the original draft behind if I am not mistaken.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 21:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not able to follow the histories and versions, but if someone needs to close this in lieu of an alternate version to be discussed, feel free.  If there isn't a version to be considered, it's my opinion that this should run so that consensus may be established.  Star Mississippi 23:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, I speedy deleted it because there was already a version in draft that had been rejected and that you had just left there when you created a new one in mainspace.  The older versions are not visible to you because they have been deleted.  That's why moving the draft into mainspace wasn't the right thing to do.  The discussion on this page now centres on the present version - the rejected draft that you moved to mainspace without correcting it.  What you actually asked me to do was to undo "your" draftification - which had absolutely nothing to do with me.  If you hadn't decided to argue the toss without checking the facts, I could have moved an old version into draftspace for review.  But I'm not getting any further involved.  If another admin wants to help you out, that's fine with me.  Deb ( talk ) 08:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Deb I am afraid this last comment of yours is quite misleading.  Take the time to check the timeline.  I moved the page to Main from the draft  ( 17:53 , 7 October 2023‎ GMT) , AFTER you had speedy deleed the article in the middle of an ongoing Afd (October 7, 16: 17 GMT), which is almost two hours before I moved it.  And I used the Draft as YOU had told me if I wanted to work on the article to move it to the main.  And I am sorry but, yes, I did spend time correcting the draft and checking the facts (again, what you say is not true and this is still verifiable).  Saying that I asked you to "undo MY draftification" is simply not true and does not make sense.  I asked you to undo your speedy deletion and restore the version that was discussed (and the Afd for that matter, should you think your speedy deletion had not nullified it).  Your refused and YOU sent me to the draft version.  Everyone can verify that.  If there is a better version, not visible to most users, then, by all means, provide it, please (but I understand that you still do not wish to do so, for reasons that are not clear to me).  Did I move the page once to Main space before October 7?  Possible, I honestly cannot remember and cannot see it in the page history; I only remember trying to improve the page.  But then, if you say my (or is it not mine but simply better ? well, if my improvements were not enough, at least someone else's were to your liking) version of October 6 was better than the current one, why speedy delete it (in the middle of an Afd)?  Best, PS1- On your talk page you mentioned this was a G6 Csd .  How did "G6: technical deletions, only if the deletion is temporary, or if no actual content will be removed" apply to an article like this, especially during an Afd, if I may ask?  PS2- do ping me if you wish me to know you replied.  Thank you.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 09:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm afraid your comments are quite misleading.  But as you say, anyone can verify what actually happened.  Deb ( talk ) 10:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They surely can.  - My, oh my!  (Mushy Yank) 10:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Procedural close .  It's pretty clear that something has gone wrong here.  I don't think there's a lot of benefit to casting blame for the variety of mistakes and misunderstandings in good faith.  Let's close this and take some time away from the topic.  Wikipedia won't crumble because one AfD goes wrong.  — siro χ o 22:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Wikipedia doesn't just let BLPs exist because persistent DE.  Its been rejected at AfC twice, speedy deleted once, and the author blocked as a sock.  It needs to run its course and be evaluated based on sources , guidelines  and policy (WP:BLPs require WP:V strong sourcing - this is non-negotiable policy).  Thats a lot of editors ! voting that should be deleted, and a DE shouldn't derail this AfD.  A simple look at sources (such as was done at AfC) shows this BLP needs deleting.  Closer : Please look at the AfC comments regarding BLP sourcing.  // Timothy :: talk 23:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have to agree.  The creator knows better than to insist on a declined draft going into article space.  Deb ( talk ) 06:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Neutral, but leaning move to draft .  It appears uncontested that the article subject has the substantial roles identified (writer, director, producer) with respect to the works listed in the article, and that these works are individually notable to the extent that no one has challenged the existence of these articles.  I would restore this to draft, give it some time for additional sources to be produced, and allow for it to be resubmitted through the usual WP:AFC process.  BD2412 T 03:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Source 3 is a RS, the rest are iffy per sourcebot, but are confirmation of the works this individual has been involved with.  There would likely be more in native language sources; plenty of films directed have reviews published about them, showing some evidence of notability for this person.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draft seems fine as well if this goes that way.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 20:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The first sources mention his last name Anthony four times and gives notability for being an international (non-Indian) newspaper Gulf News .  The other sources are just brief mentions.  A source in the native language ജിജോ അന്തോണി yields close to nothing ( [19] ) but the Kerala State Award gives him notability.  DareshMohan ( talk ) 06:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: This AFD is a mess.  My instinct is to Draftify this article but I'd like to see if there is more support for that option.  Right now, there is no overwhelming consensus for any particular closure.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  05:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , the article needs work but there seems to be evidence of notability from various reliable sources.  DCsansei ( talk ) — Preceding undated comment added 07:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify is the kindest outcome, though I wouldn't oppose deletion.  The sources are really not great.  The Gulf News article reeks of press-release, almost certainly triggered by a publicist.  The Indian Express piece is again routine publicity released before the film was shown.  The On Manorama bit is mostly interview.  The Times of India pieces are both sponsored content, I think?  The Economic Times bit mentions Antony once in connection with his film getting the Kerala state award for the best second film.  I'm not really convinced this award is, on its  own, enough to confer notability.  Unless there is something truly independent, a genuine review published after a film's showing, by someone who wasn't prompted to do so by someone connected with the film, we cannot have an article in main-space.  Elemimele ( talk ) 12:09, 22 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] No idea about the article history, subjects probably meets notability requirements though.  Referencing on the other hand is a bit weak.  Oppose deletion, either keep or recommend moving to draft.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 00:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist.  Constructive comments are starting to appear but there is still no strong consensus on whether keeping or draftifying (or deleting).  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Timothytyy ( talk ) 08:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete - While draftify is a good WP:ATD , it was declined three times at AfC before creator moved it on their own to the mainspace so no sense sending it back.  Four of the seven references ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA .  The Gulf News seems to be the strongest source; however, I question it being actually written by Gulf News staff.  The byline author has a note of "special to the tabloid" indicating they are not a staff writer.  The title is also "the evolution of Jijo Antony" yet the article is brief and doesn't go in-depth about his career (where is the "evolution"?).  Everything else I find online is mention of him along with the films or other references falling under NEWSORGINDIA.  If anything, redirect to Konthayum Poonoolum where we can at least verify he was part of.  -- CNMall41 ( talk ) 19:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Semi'ed to stop the sock disruption.  I don't think my prior actions make me Involved, but if an admin disagrees, feel free.  Star Mississippi 14:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per CNMall41; if it's been declined repeatedly at AFC then draftifying it is a cop-out .  Stifle ( talk ) 10:57, 9 November 2023 (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: no consensus