Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fame Fashion and Creative Excellence (FFACE)


 * 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. Delete and salt. j⚛e deckertalk 02:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Fame Fashion and Creative Excellence (FFACE)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Did not see any notablity reference other than facbook pages and adds in news paper Shrikanthv (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

*Keep - I have carefully considered the content of the page and with my ability to read the regional language, it is a proper press release and not a newspaper ad. Press releases are considered to be notable. I do not think there is reason to delete. I have also added categories to list it correctly Streethawk83 (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

*Keep - Thank you. Another reference added " Gomolo on FFACE dated 25.3.2014" to make the article even stronger. awesomeme111 21:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomeme111 (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - It sounds like it has good intent - But is it notable? Bearian (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Sorry. I had a search for Fame Fashion and Creative Excellence, excluding Wikipedia, Facebook, Twitter, & YouTube, and got an epic six hits - absolutely none of which were valid as sources. I simply can't see any notability. Mabalu (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - the only Google book references are to a middle English alternate spelling of 'fface'. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - It has Indian Regional and National Dailies News Coverage awesomeme111 20:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomeme111 (talk • contribs)

*Keep Definitely verifiable content. Involvement of loads of distinguished people from film and fashion. Tags changed to additional citation requirement.Soma1959 (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, and I found a press release by a notable journal Ebela, sister concern of The Telegraph (Calcutta). The fame fashion and creative excellence article's reference no 5 confirms a press release in this specific journal. 203.171.222.5 (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Please note press release can be done by any person and cannot be used for notablity
 * Comment seems sockpuppeting and ip's are spamming the deletion process for keeps!! Shrikanthv (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment While the above reason and reference is quite correct, sockpuppeting is not at all acceptable (apologies if that's not the case). A request to all, please note that Wikipedia articles should always merit to be an encyclopedia article and has to be notable. Please don't try to disrupt the debate by spamming keeps and deletes. We need to have a clear consensus and have a healthy debate to ensure if the article qualifies for a wikipedia article. If possible, encourage in improving the article. awesomeme111 17:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Additional citation added - Tollywood Dhamaka. Retrieved 25 March 2013.awesomeme111 22:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  → Call me  Hahc  21  06:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I've relisted this AfD and protected this page. Looks like some socking or meatpuppeting hase been going on to disrupt the process.  → Call me  Hahc  21  06:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Socks notification, I have just check the keeps comment seems all are socks of the creator of the article socks here : User talk:Streethawk83 , Awesomeme111 , Soma1959 Shrikanthv (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - based on what I've seen since my comment, this is mere spam being pushed by advocates. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. I have semi-portected the page for 24 hours to prevent another removal of the WP:AfD tag. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt as per Bearian. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.