Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dajjal: The Slayer and His Followers

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 no consensus, with no prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation.

Some notes: it seems unlikely that this film is a hoax, as evidenced by the film having a page on Rotten Tomatoes (here) (although there are no critic or audience reviews), and having received some coverage in some publications, such as Medium (here), despite this being essentially a reprinted press release. Furthermore, the article does not qualify for WP:G5 speedy deletion because it was created before its creator was found to be socking. Also, please note that these side notes are not an !vote within this closure. Rather, they are just notes to address some aspects of the nomination for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dajjal: The Slayer and His Followers

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:HOAX and WP:NOTPROMO, no mention in any RS or verification that this film even exists. Created by the same sock farm that made the now twice AfD'd Rana Abrar (the director here) article. Other promotional articles (now deleted) for non-existent films by the same sock farm include: Son of Kashmir: Burhan, The Evil Marriage. A prod was removed without any improvement to the article (adding simply references to editable databases). I cannot find a single RS which reviews it or even verifies the existence of this film besides trailers. Gotitbro (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Gotitbro (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the film doesn't exist, then the article should definitely be deleted. But after a quick Google search, there is actually a lot of websites that cover this film. Sam1529 (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This film has a lot of media coverage and it is a notable topic, you can just see by searching on Google. There are many controversies on this film which is why it is known by many people. There are many ratings and reviews from large film and media agencies on it. Just because pages related to it got deleted doesn't make this film less notable.

These pages are being removed by those who are against the movie of another controversial film "Son of Kashmir: Burhan" which is also a very notable film as its news was aired on famous Pakistan and Indian News channels but it got removed out of animosity of those who opposes the topic of the film.

One can search about Dajjal Film and see its presence on media is very notable. A speedy deletion of this film has been rejected just a month ago which was made by the same person who is now putting it for deletion again and again.--JonnyK.2 (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:32, 16 June 2020 (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.