Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tchindas


 * 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 now that the article has been improved and there are no serious concerns for AfD (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  23:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Tchindas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Reason μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no proof of notability, and the article was apparently created by a sock of the indeffed user:Neptunekh who has be forbidden from creating categories, for which see the user's talk page history. μηδείς (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In addition to the fact that this article seems to have been created by an indeffed sock User:Mito9999 of the indeffed user:Neptunekh, it began as a cut and paste copyvio and no other source has been given. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 January 20.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 03:37, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  05:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  05:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per meeting WP:NF. While authorship is a concern, the film topic is notable none-the-less and merits an article. And while poorly sourced when nominated, that lack is an addresable minor issue in the face of WP:NRVE. Easy WP:BEFORE finds lots of sourcing: HollywoodReporter, Time Out Chicago (1), Frontiers Media, Time Out Chicago (2), 76 Crimes, Outfest Los Angeles, and others. Like it or not, the topic meets WP:NF.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Update: Since its nomination and based upon my own WP:BEFORE, the article has met with some major improvements. .  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I nominated this article only because one the main contributors, User:Neptunekh, who is a notorious sockmaster, is well-known to me. I otherwise have no opinion on the dubious notability of the subject, although someone should check the copyright status of any to be retained material. μηδείς (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, then I hope folks will look to my attentions as a non-involved editor which establish it as meeting the criteria of WP:NF. And as it has now been improved by someone uninvolved and not-a-sock, let's not dwell on how it got here. Thanks. Schmidt,  Michael Q. 03:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: enough sources have been added to show this is a notable and prize-winning film. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, why is this still open? Keep it per WP:HEY, actual sourcin makes this film notable beyond any reasonable doubt. Cavarrone 20:31, 8 February 2016 (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.