Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Para Namal

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Para Namal

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

Unreferenced article about a Youtube series. Prod was removed without explanation. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MOVIE almost qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:A7 Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete I see no sources to indicate this is anything other than a non-notable 'amateur' youtube series. Deunanknute (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (does not meet speedy criteria) for failing WP:NF. A new project from Sri Lanka it exists, but currently available sources do not meet RS standards. If it ever gains coverage a WP:REFUND might be considered. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just noticed that the name of the editor that created the article is the same as one of the claimed producers, so it seems to be self promotional and there are obvious WP:COI issues.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send the noob to WP:PRIMER and WP:COI and specially WP:NOTABOUTYOU. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Michael Q. I have followed your advice. Unfortunately I was also forced to report him for 3rr violation and he has been blocked for 31 hours, I hope his future contributions will be more productive.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: After searching I've failed to find any indepedent/verifiable sources that support the article's notability - so in my view it clearly doesn't satisfy WP:FILM. I also agree that it is likely the article was created by one of the producers of the Youtube episodes, which presents serious WP:COI issues with the article. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2015 (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.