Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SK Films

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 speedy-delete G5‎. (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SK Films

[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)

@Espresso Addict, DoubleGrazing, Deb, Jimfbleak, JBW, Kinopiko, Liz, Nythar, GB fan, and BoyTheKingCanDance: OK, let's look at what has happened with this article, in the past and in its current form.

It was initially created on 23 Jun 2023 by Md Majedul Islam (Sonju) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a now globally blocked editor
It was deleted on 3 Jun 2023 (retrospectively deleted? Not sure how this works?) by ONUnicorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It was again deleted on 3 Jun 2023 by Deb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It was deleted on 6 Jun 2023 by Lourdes (that in itself is, let's just say.... Things That Make You Go Hmmm...
It was deleted again on 6 Jun 2023 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It was deleted 7 Jun 2023 by JBW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It was deleted 9 Jun 2023 by GB fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
It was deleted again on 9 Jun 2023 by JBW

It would appear to me that this article has not been a subject of the usual Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process, and that the various iterations of Draft:SK Films International and Draft:SK Films should possibly also come under that scrutiny. As always, please do let me know if I'm in error here. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the ping, @Shirt58: I'd forgotten about this one; will take a look. Question: is it bad manners to block the author on the very day when an AfD opens on one of their creations? Judging by the username alone, Looks like a duck to me. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: I note that I did not include a policy based deletion rationale about whether this film company may or may not meet WP:GNG and so on. That fault here is entirely my own. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think we need a source analysis of the references in the article and in the corresponding Bengali article at bn:এসকে ফিল্মস, and of any other references that can be found, such as those from newspapers in Bangladesh or from the Bangladesh equivalent of Variety magazine. I haven't compared the references in this artcle with those in the Bengali one (which happens to have four references). Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I nominated this article for speedy deletion three times back in June 2023 due to copyvios (link for reference). The current page hardly contains any text so that issue is not present at the moment. Nythar (💬-🍀) 12:46, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirt58: I don't understand this. ~~Firstly, you have created an AfD discussion, but have not given any reason for deletion.~~ Secondly, what do you mean by "this article has not been a subject of the usual Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process"? Do you mean that it hasn't been subject to an AfD before? If so, no, it hasn't, because every deletion has been a speedy deletion. Can you clarify? JBW (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shirt58 Sorry, I somehow failed to notice your comment above beginning "I note that I did not include a policy based deletion rationale..." I should have read more carefully. JBW (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has previously been repeatedly created by a sockpuppeteer whose accounts have included Smajedul, Md Majedul Islam (Sonju), Majedul Islam Sonju, & মোঃ মাজেদুল ইসলাম সনজু, which Google anglicises as "Md. Majedul Islam Sanju". It been re-created by an account called IamMajedulSonju; that looks to me like a self-declared sockpuppet. Is there any reason not to just delete it under dpeedy deletion criterion G5? I would have just done that without hesitation, if it weren't for the comments above, which led me to think it better to let others tell me if they see any reason not to which I haven't thought of. JBW (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation I have found more evidence that the latest account is another sockpuppet of that editor, in addition to the username & the creation of this article, so I have bocked & tagged the account. JBW (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Time to protect the page I think, so that article can only be created by an admin. Deb (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: My experience is that in this situation it's better not to protect. It is virtually certain that someone who hss persistently re-created the page so many times, undeterred by both multiple deletions and multiple blocks, will not give up, but will just move to a slightly different title. It's easy to watch the existing title, but impossible to watch every possible new title they may dream up, so the effect of protection is to make it easier for them to avoid detection. JBW (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your view, but my experience is different. Deb (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is not an article, it's a few words slung together. Deb (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - CSD G5. Kinopiko ^talk 15:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per JBW. Mehedi Abedin 16:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Salting after deletion Page has now been G5'ed by Isabelle Belato (talk · contribs), but still open for creation, so that avenue needs to be shut down, along with SK Films International. Nate • (chatter) 19:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I said above, addressed to Deb; salting would be counterproductive. JBW (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I should have said "will be counterproductive", as Isabelle Belato has already done it. Isabelle, are you willing to reconsider salting? JBW (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why should she? Seriously, let's just see how it goes, rather than questioning the judgment of another admin. Deb (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I usually avoid salting articles unless requested by the person applying the speedy deletion or when asked on RFPP. Any uninvolved admin is welcome to salt the article, though, if they see fit. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:22, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: As I was cycling in to work today, it occurred to me that I had made yet another mistake: I had written this up as if now was 2024 not 2025. My apologies to everyone involved. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:42, 18 February 2025 (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.