Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Luterey

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. slakr^\ talk / 01:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

International Luterey[edit]

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

This article does not have any references. Supdiop (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is International Lutery, but it references an International Lottery...?? Is this a mistake or a play on words??

Speedy-this is a page created by a sock. Wgolf (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page cannot be speedied under G5 yet. The sock isn't confirmed. Zeke Essiestudy (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Agreed, the page is confusing and poorly done. It's not sourced and its unclear exactly what should be searched to assist in building out the article S3venevan (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G5 (creation by banned user). The SPI appears to be a formality based on the WP:DUCKish similarities. PS: The actual title of the film, per the cited source, is International Luteray (although it is unclear what the word "Luteray" might mean). The differences in spellings are no doubt attributable to the vagaries of transliterating Urdu to English. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pre-internet Pakistani films are difficult to source, and no real point doing anything to fix this as a sock of a banned user just about confirms deletion... but if any non-sock regular-editor wishes to bring this back to life, I'd say sure. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable unless RS are provided... I'll reconsider even if a local RS is present. PS. I've never heard of the film but I generally agree it might some times be difficult to source the pre-internet stuff from Pak. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:23, 30 April 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.