Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2016 February 7

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

It feels like an unneccicary expansion to the 2016 election page, rather than it's own page. OrangeYoshi99 (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting it back because the article is part of a series of articles on the election results of the all the primaries in the 50 states, six territories and the District of Columbia. See below:

Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps as I've noticed several articles with states-focused pages and this seems acceptable, no serious needs for deletion. Notifying DGG for analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the same basis as the others. If there aren;t much in the way or sources now, there very soon will be. Tje missing ones should be started as soon as possible. DGG ( talk ) 09:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments of SwisterTwister and DGG. May need some cleanup, but no need for deletion. There is clearly a precedent and justification for this type of article.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2016 (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.

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. Speedy deleted by Anthony Appleyard, CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alraid

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

Despite the removal of the prod there are still no independent sources, and is overly promotional with little to indicate notability Jac16888 ^Talk 22:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent RSs in the Russian and Ukrainian versions, either. There's some coverage of a recent dust-up with Crimean authorities in Russian and Ukrainian press, but I don't see enough to establish notability. Eperoton (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2016 (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.

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 delete. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tweddle

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

Minor government official. If find many mentions in connection with cases he has investigated but nothing that indicates real notability. —teb728 t c 21:26, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 02:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

talk) 02:35, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Delete cant see anything that indicates notability. MilborneOne (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and I may've simply PRODed as this is obvious. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 13 February 2016 (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.

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turki Al-Jalvan

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails

WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet to make an appearance in a
WP:FPL nor has he made an international appearance. Nothing to suggest he passes GNG any other way. Seasider91 (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Fails
GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:48, 8 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. It has been shown that Sean Maye meets

WP:NTRACK. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Sean Maye

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

Does not assert significance. Rollingcontributor (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search reveals that Maye won a gold medal at the
WP:NTRACK. /wiae /tlk 02:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 02:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as that seems convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 13 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. Nominator is urged to read, mark and learn from

WP:CSD. JohnCD (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Cornwall Park, Auckland

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

Article does not assert significance. Rollingcontributor (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a substantial park, and I see no benefit from deletion here. --Michig (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Article subjects aren't required to be "significant", so they certainly aren't required to assert it. They are required to be able to show notability, which they do with coverage in other sources. This does so: sources from 1901, sources from today. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emphasise this as a 'snow keep to a very dubious nomination (see below). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Article clearly passes GNG. IMO an Afd within hours of creation is not constructive editing. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that, I'd also note that the nominator had earlier speedied it as

WP:POINTY or something deeper. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Could an uninvolved admin please close this AfD? The creation of this park is one of the most significant events in Auckland's history. I can't call myself uninvolved, as I have extensively edited related pages; otherwise, I would have closed the AfD myself. Schwede 66 07:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, I have marked it under G1, and immediately undid the action, as I felt it was not suitable. And perhaps I wasn't constructive by marking it for Afd very soon, but the G1 tag was removed immediately, in the next minute, as you can see in the edit log. Rollingcontributor (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2016 (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.

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Perez

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

Concern was that the article fails

WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD contested by IP user without providing a reason. – Michael (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. With 25 caps and participation in a continental tournament, even at the U-17 level, ~~it looks like he does meet WP:NFOOTBALL~~. —C.Fred (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC) (edited 20:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Capping at the youth level does not meet

WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
Talk to my owner:Online 19:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete. If he's signed to Fiorentina, it stands to reason that there's coverage of him—but that hasn't been shown in the article. Obviously, the situation would change if he goes into the game for Fiorentina's A squad (i.e., not the reserves), but at this point, that's
looking into a crystal ball. After rereading WP:NFOOTBALL, I've reconsidered my position. —C.Fred (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No senior club or international appearances, no other indication of notability. Seasider91 (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails
GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails
WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete not notable yet. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2016 (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.

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Hirata

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

Article about a non notable Brazilian professor (It does not seem to meet

WP:PROF). The article was also deleted from Wikipedia in Portuguese, Wikipedia in Japanese and Wikipedia in Italian. The sources are either self published (Lattes is a self published currriculum) or have conflict with the professor (and some of them are offline). Nothing indicates notability. Bilhauano (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bilhauano (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Bilhauano (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 19:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

(talk) 19:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Delete. His specialty (ancient law) appears to be a low-citation subject, but even so I can't find any of his publications that has more than low single-digit citations in Google scholar. That's not enough for
WP:PROF#C1 and I don't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete at best as this seems questionable for the applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. Most online sources are self-published or very brief. giso6150 (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2016 (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.

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Wollersheim

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

Per our

WP:BLP policies, I'm not convinced that the sourcing is adequate for such a negative article. Ϣere SpielChequers 19:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Delete The current BLP has some extraordinarily iffy sourcing including sources which rank somewhat lower than the Daily Mail in veracity, and some sources which do not make the claims they are supposed to support. The person has no notability in any English language sourcing, and not a lot in the German tabloids either. http://www.bild.de/regional/ruhrgebiet/sophia-wollersheim/berti-schaute-finale-im-tabledance-laden-44378242.bild.html is the latest "BILD" article - if this is a "notable person" per Wikipedia standards, then please tell us <g>. Collect (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

talk) 01:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

talk) 01:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Delete as the article is questionable at best. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficiently sourced to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2016 (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.

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Whores

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

Does not pass

WP:GNG. Unsourced since 2009. Article reads like a fansite. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I'm the original creator here. Our rules about the notability of bands and the citing of sources were very different in 2004, when I created this, than they are now — at the time, any band that had at least one independently notable member was an eligible topic on that basis alone, and we were nowhere near as strict about requiring the sources to be in the article as long as they were locatable. And the promotional tinge here wasn't written by me, but was added later on by a user named Jptrash (
WP:GNG have been tightened up considerably in the past twelve years, and my own sense of what belongs here and what doesn't has evolved right alongside them — under the standards that apply today nothing here passes NMUSIC, and while I checked ProQuest just now and got a handful of hits, none of them were substantive enough to satisfy GNG. So it was a legitimate article at the time I created it — but today, it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as none of this suggests better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 7 February 2016 (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.

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 Delete. Michig (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zakaria Polash

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

The cited sources are written by the subject or contain only a brief quote from him. Searches of the usual types found only more of the same: [1] and [2] (for non-subscribers: "JU student also JUDO members Zakaria Polash, Shakayat Jamil Saikat and Jafor Sadik were adjudged the competition."). These do not add up to in-depth coverage that is independent of the subject, so fails

WP:BASIC. Worldbruce (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionably solidly notable for the applicable notability, delete and restart at best. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can locate secondary sources that discuss this scholar/journalist - as opposed to material he has authored. I could not source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Parsley Man (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2016 (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.

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tarl Knight

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

Article was previously deleted but promptly recreated by a single-purpose account that, judging by the username, is connected to the subject of the article. Subject is a singer who does not meet the notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Article does not demonstrate in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Citobun (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best as none of this currently convinces better applicable notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in
reliable sources to allow Tarl Knight to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2016 (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.

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 delete and redirect to

Topmodel (cycle 1). Sandstein 10:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Hanne Baekelandt

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

This article is about a person who may not meet notability guidelines

Linguist111 (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Musa^Talk ☻ 15:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly any news coverage.

Linguist111 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Delete as questionably better for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 03:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
Topmodel (cycle 1): No particularly significant coverage apparent after her Topmodel win. ^~~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~~ 09:08, 9 February 2016 (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.

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.

(conjugate) 13:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Red Caps (TV series)

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

Fails

WP:GNG. Article has had only one source since its creation.. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 21:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

Delete per the lack of third party sources. --
HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 23:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 23:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to
Animation Magazine, [4] which lists the film (under the truncated title The Magic Crystal) as an entry in a European film festival. --Jpcase (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, possibly move to
Santa's Magic Crystal. While the film seems more notable than the series, both have received some reliable coverage. While I think that one article covering both the topics is enough, I am not sure under which title it should be (the title of the film, which seems to be more sourcable, or the title of the series which originated it). Cavarrone 07:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for now at best and draft & userfy to start any future article, as it seems clear there is currently nothing. SwisterTwister talk 02:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing appears to be a matter of language. There are third party sources although they are not easy to find. It is a Finnish program so the sources are mostly in Finnish. It also appears to have been popular in Hungary under the title "Télapó pirossapkás koboldjai", a search for which yields more results (in Hungarian, of course). So, keep if it can be expanded using the foreign language sources.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 06:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:04, 7 February 2016 (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.

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 delete. Sandstein 10:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dasharath giri

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

Article subject isn't even mentioned in any of the given "references". Emotionalllama (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 17:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as questionable for WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 19:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources are now provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bikashgiri016 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that the subject is notable. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:54, 8 February 2016 (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.

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 Keep as it is clear that such schools are notable and there's not further need for AfD thus unlikely further time is needed for this considering there's a clear consensus (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Akbarpur Inter College

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -
Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

C.D.Girls Inter College

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons. Ireneshih (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -
Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept.—UY Scuti ^Talk 12:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Galuapur Inter College

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -
Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept.—UY Scuti ^Talk 12:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya Kanpur Dehat

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -
Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've fixed the promo bit.—UY Scuti ^Talk 12:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 01:17, 12 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dahi Chowki Unnao

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -
Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've fixed the promo bit—UY Scuti ^Talk 12:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Kendriya Vidyalaya Guna, Madhya Pradesh

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -
Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've cleaned up the article —UY Scuti ^Talk 12:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 10 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Kendriya Vidyalaya, NTPC Dibiyapur

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is one of the school operated by the Government of India. The question we are left at the moment is to have multiple individual pages for every branch (more than 1000 branches exists), or to create redirect pages for the school. Ireneshih (talk) 06:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -
Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've fixed the promo bit —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Kendriya Vidyalaya, Mati

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -
Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've fixed the promo bit —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Puranchandra Vidyaniketan

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -
Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept, albeit a fix on the promo bit of the article is needed—UY Scuti ^Talk 13:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

R P S Inter College

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -
Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept, albeit a fix on the promo bit of the article is needed —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a highschool/secondary school due to current consensus related to schools. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Kendriya Vidyalaya Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh

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

Non-notable school: nothing but promotional material, cited sources are mostly promotional. Deserves nothing more than a merge to wherever it is located at. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is accepted practice that all high schools are considered notable -- this is part of a longstanding compromise to avoid thousands of these AfDs (the other half of the compromise is that all primary schools are not considered notable, unless there are special factors). We do delete advertising, but this articles is not all that highly promotional . DGG ( talk ) 19:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -
Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept, I've fixed the promo bit —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

JDVM Inter College

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

Non-notable school. All but promotional material. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -
Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept and the article is not promotional —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Mahatma Gandhi Inter College

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

Non-notable school. Nothing but an advert! Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -
Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've cleaned up the article —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 10 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

S C G M Inter College Madhupur Sonebhadra

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

Non-notable middle school. Deserves a merge with geographical location at the most. Stand-alone article? Nope. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Inter colleges are high schools. Can you please explain how you determined this to be a middle school?
Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. The existence of this school can be verified by a quick Googling —UY Scuti ^Talk 13:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Sanatan Dharma Vidyalaya

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

Does not mean notability guidelines, and is simply an advert for the school. Nothing substantial about it. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -
Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept and the article is not promotional —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

B N S D Shiksha Niketan

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

Inherently non-notable school; promotional material (peacock language: "one of the most famous" etc). Nothing but an advert. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

(talk) 15:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

(talk) 15:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Keep -
Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept. I've cleaned up the article —UY Scuti ^Talk 14:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2016 (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.

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 keep. All high/secondary schools are kept per

(non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College kalyanpur

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

Non-notable school. Page deserves a title change while we're at it too. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Kingoflettuce, likely with other AFD's this is again a keep. Please review DGG comments on your talk page before nominating any further. Ireneshih (talk) 06:26, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure on this one I have not been able to find a source that even shows real existence, besides what can be inferred from likes on Facebook. Nor can I find unambiguous evidence that this is actually a high school. I consider a school website generally sufficient to show real existence, but I cannot find even that. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The school apparently exists per this and intermediate colleges (inter colleges) are actually high schools in some states of India.
Long standing consensus is that high schools and institutions awarding degree are generally kept.—UY Scuti ^Talk 12:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2016 (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.

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 delete. Sandstein 10:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GIS and Remote Sensing Lab,Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Department Peshawar,Pakistan

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

Reads like a press release, not fit for an encyclopaedia JMHamo (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 04:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as looks like news article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeeAichhBee (talk • contribs) 15:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly not yet a better notable article. SwisterTwister talk 07:38, 13 February 2016 (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.

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 delete. Already deleted with reference to this discussion ("closed as delete"); I believe the deleting admin just forgot to close. Bishonen | talk 11:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Prabhakaran

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

Article about a director of one film. The few reliable sources merely mention him in passing. Fails

WP:DIRECTOR. - Mr X 13:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

I subscribe to the views expressed by MrX. The director may not be notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Rollingcontributor (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 14:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Tony3322 is a CU-confirmed sock of Aparna tutu, who created the article. See here. GAB^Hello! 17:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet better satisfying WP:CREATIVE. SwisterTwister talk 21:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate that the subject is
notable. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:04, 8 February 2016 (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.

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 delete. Sandstein 10:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Jha

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

Not yet notable per

Indian Telly Award four years ago, but I can find no coverage of that online apart from the awards' website, and nothing else about him online in WP:Reliable sources. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply