Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lassi with Lizzie
- 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. relisting a third time isn't going to get more consensus. Treating it as a unanimous 15 day PROD StarM 02:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lassi with Lizzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Notability. Is the Southall TV festival of sufficient merit to make this notable enough? No Google hits, other than the WP article. Chris (talk) 05:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo radda 16:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Seeing how the last award is called "Best Looking" I suspect this was originally in some Indian language. It is no surprise there are no Google hits in English. We need to look in some Indian language to get answers here. - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is a bad one that cites no sources. I looked for sources, using several of the names given in the article, and trying some alternative spellnigs, and couldn't find a thing. The purported television festival isn't documented anywhere, either. Southall is in the U.K., so I don't think that FUTON bias is relevant here. (I observe, in reference to the above, that my experience of Indian subjects is that Indian English sources are often to be found. Alternative spellings are usually the problem. However, again, note that this is purportedly something that happened in the U.K..) This article, and the various subjects within it, are entirely unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not notable. --GPPande talk! 18:51, 1 November 2008 (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.