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 Draftify as the release date is within reasonable draft incubation Star Mississippi 02:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Babli Bouncer[edit]

Babli Bouncer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I cannot determine a reason under WP:NFILM why this article should exist. The film is upcoming. WP:TOOSOON may apply, so I suggest deletion without prejudice to future recreation once notability is established. In addition more than one reference deployed in the article makes no mention of the film, and many others are churnalism 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The release date is not announced and it would take sometime as the filming wrapped up recently. Post Production work wouldn't have started yet most probably. It is said that the movie may release by the end of the year. I created the article as I believe it would satisfy WP:NFF as their is ample amount of sources available which may at some point comply with Wikipedia guidelines WP:NFILM as the principal photography started in February and completed in May. I agree with the reviewer and nominator for looking into it, guiding me nominating per WP:TOOSOON . I would like to suggest whoever close the afd rather deleting it, if you could Move to Draft. Thanks C1K98V ^{(💬 ✒️ 📂)} 15:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @C1K98V I believe we should interpret your comment as a request to draftify the article, so I am making this clearer to the eventual closer of the discussion. I considered draftifying it myself, unilaterally. The reason I chose not to was precisely the reason you state about potential elapsed time before a full release. The Draft space is not intended to hold material for an indeterminate period, It is intended that the draft be worked on with an end in sight. This is what I have nominated it for deletion without prejudice to future re-creation

  References do not "at some point comply", they are either valid or are not valid. Yours are borderline at best. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify / userify seems the page creator intends to keep working on it, no reason to make them go through REFUND. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:40, 28 May 2022 (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.