Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Shortcut
WikiProject
Television
Project main page
Project discussion
Project assessment talk
Television portal talk
Descendant WikiProjects and task forces
Showcase
Project organization
Article alerts
Deletion sorting
Popular pages
New articles
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Project templates talk
Television stubs
Guidelines
Project manual of style talk
Project notability guidelines talk
TV article naming convention talk
Broadcasting article naming convention talk
Related WikiProjects
Actors and Filmmakers
Albums
Animation
Anime and manga
Comics
Film
Literature
Media franchises
Radio
Screenwriters
Westerns
view · edit · changes
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Television. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Television|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Television. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Purge page cache watch
Scan for TV related AfDs
This will only scan about 1,500 categories. Go here to tweak which ones are scanned.

Related deletion sorting


Television

Clare McCann

Clare McCann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written as a PR piece with lack of proper sourcing. References used mention very little about the subject neither are they the focus of the person. May not meet WP:GNG. AnonUser1 (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Farnsworth

Professor Farnsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not an AfD i want to do. I absolutely love Futurama and it was one of my favorite comedy cartoons, but unfortunately, this character does not pass WP:GNG. Of the eight sources, none are independent and are only passing mentions, some don't even discuss him, at all. I tried doing a WP:BEFORE and i can't find anything that talks about him.

Again, i didn't want to do this, but i have to, there is no turning back from what i am doing, so i am doing the right thing to nominate this for AfD. Toby2023 (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thoroughbred Racing on CBS commentators

List of Thoroughbred Racing on CBS commentators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding the needed coverage of these commentators as a grouping to meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sven (Voltron)

Sven (Voltron) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, as i am a Voltron fan myself, this character fails WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE found nothing, it only talks about the shows he is from. This is something i didn't want to do, but i have to nominate it. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same issues as him.:

Princess Allura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keith (Voltron) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lance (Voltron) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hunk (Voltron) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prince Lotor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emperor Zarkon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Rise of Voltron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Toby2023 (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep for The Rise of Voltron as it is an episode and not a character and does not belong in this bundled nomination. It should be nominated separately. Merge all others to List of Voltron characters per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is an episode, but i still included this because it is Voltron after all. It doesn't pass WP:GNG. Toby2023 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but it's best to bundle nominations where the outcomes have a shared ending. In general, the bundling process is best avoided when articles are not very close in design. A charcter page is very different then a television episode page.4meter4 (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close WP:NPASR, but make sure that WP:BUNDLE is scrupulously followed per the above. If not, this is more likely than not going to end up as a train wreck. Better to restart clean with separate noms for characters and episode(s) rather than hoping it doesn't go off the rails. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nindu Noorella Savaasam

Nindu Noorella Savaasam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources. First two sources are about the remake and I can find no significant coverage to establish notability for the original here. Creation by UPE and redirect edit warred by IP so I would not recommend a redirect as an ATD unless it can be fully protected to avoid disruption. CNMall41 (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Leaders

Industry Leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is clearly an advertorial-style TV show that lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources under WP:NTV and WP:GNG. In terms of existing sources, the Herald Sun reference is actually to a suburban local paper owned by the same company, not to the Melbourne Herald Sun itself. Boneymau (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The show seems clearly notable as an established broadcast TV program. The fact that the actual content of the show might be fluffy business cheerleading seems to be influencing the nomination, and it shouldn’t, that has nothing to do with the notability of the show.
The fact that this article is fluffy cheerleading however, is relevant, and this article isn’t ready to be public in its current form, hence the nomination. It will need an eventual source analysis but that’s premature until the article is NPOV.
When that happens, the analysis of sources should be mindful that this is media, and coverage of media within other media tends to follow different conventions. WilsonP NYC (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major Indoor Soccer League (1978–1992) broadcasters

AfDs for this article:
List of Major Indoor Soccer League (1978–1992) broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding coverage of the broadcasters of this league as a grouping from secondary sources to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ash-Shatat

Ash-Shatat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Based nearly entirely on unreliable sources, with no lasting significance or impact. nableezy - 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article currently based on poor sources but there seem to be better ones out there.
[1][2][3][4][5][6] BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this far out news reports are primary sources. One of those seems fine though. nableezy - 13:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, media reviews/commentary are secondary regardless of temporal distance (which is mentioned at WP:PRIMARYNEWS). Sources above are good. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren’t media reviews, they are news stories. nableezy - 14:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are commentary on the program and its existence, they're not merely "this program aired" they discuss it and its context. So I think it counts. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There also seem to be a decent amount of mentions of this program in academic books, but most aren't very long admittedly, not passing but not extensive. However there are quite a few. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in addition to the sources Bob mentioned, which are indeed secondary, there's significant coverage in books, articles, and government reports, mostly under "al-Shatat" rather than "ash-Shatat". A lot of it I don't have access to, but some public ones are [7] [8] [9] [10]. So I think it meets WP:GNG, the article certainly needs work though. — xDanielx T/C\R 23:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Access Entertainment

Access Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability isn't inherited, fails WP:NCORP. The redirect was removed twice, so putting it up here for discussion. Suggest restoring the redirect and protecting the page from re-creation. - The9Man Talk 09:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This company seems obviously notable at first glance, but the article doesn’t cite any real sources. Disagree with protecting this page as it looks like notability is likely to exist and further coverage will be found. WilsonP NYC (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ahvaz TV

Al-Ahvaz TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N. All of the references here are part of Iranian government propaganda "news agencies". e.g. The biggest source is Tasnim that belongs to IRGC. Ladsgroupoverleg 23:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gallifrey

Gallifrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Following my recent Skaro nom, I'm also nominating Gallifrey as well. I took a more in-depth look at Gallifrey as, unlike, Skaro, it was mentioned a lot more in sources, requiring a more exhaustive look to pick apart the trivial mentions from actual analysis.

News sources only turned up plot recaps or mentions of media that featured Gallifrey as a location (With a few minor bits of trivia thrown in between).

Scholar, including a peruse through the Wikipedia Library, turned up a few hits, but all of them only had Gallifrey in the title, and barely mentioned it within the text, or only did so in terms of plot recap, context information, or trivial mentions. One source mentioned Gallifrey extensively, but this was due to it covering Gallifrey Base and Gallifrey One, fansites that take Gallifrey's name but do not themselves give notability to Gallifrey due to having no correlation beyond naming.

Books turned up similarly, also pulling up a Gallifrey Base/Gallifrey One source, but did pull up one actually good hit of WP:SIGCOV in the form of the book "Ruminations, Peregrinations, and Regenerations: A Critical Approach to Doctor Who," which covers Gallifrey's society in an analytical manner for a few pages. This was the only hit I found, however, and every other book source was official material, trivial mentions, or only being mentioned as part of background or plot recap.

Given there is only one piece of actual coverage, and the rest of the sources either fall under WP:NOTPLOT or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, I don't believe this subject meets the WP:GNG. It has a viable AtD in the form of Time Lord, the species who hails from Gallifrey and is heavily associated with it in-canon, but it doesn't seem to have any individual notability separate from any other facet of the show. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the scope of Doctor Who fandom, the BEFORE as articulated above is simply not credible. Of course RS'es exist beyond what the nom portrays, GNG is met, etc. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I should probably elaborate a bit. Nom cites NOTPLOT when discussing sources. That's a critical party foul here, because an RS that summarizes a work of fiction is in the process being transformative and hence secondary: Plot summaries count towards notability. NOTPLOT applies only to how we describe fictional elements on Wikipedia--that is, not entirely in universe. A non-Wikipedia page can't fail NOTPLOT because NOTPLOT only applies to Wikipedia itself. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very confused as to what kind of point you're trying to say here. Yes, NOTPLOT covers how we describe them on site... but how is an all-plot summary source going to change that? It's still running afoul of NOTPLOT because the Wikipedia article is still entirely plot, even with a citation. Your definition of NOTPLOT does not align with what the policy is actually saying: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
    Additionally, your original argument before your clarification is entirely a Wikipedia:SOURCESMUSTEXIST argument by dismissing my entire nomination on the grounds that there must be something else. I've given a summary of my BEFORE, and if you feel it's still inadequate, then feel free to do a search of your own to double check my findings, but dismissing the nom without any actual grounding is just bad play. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me be clear: your misunderstanding of NOTPLOT demonstrates, within itself, the incompetence of your nomination. You yourself said, in part rest of the sources either fall under WP:NOTPLOT. Full stop: Sources can't fail NOTPLOT. Plot summaries are transformative, and a non-trivial, independent, reliable source consisting solely of plot summary is an appropriate RS that contributes to notability. The fact that a Wikipedia article wouldn't be appropriate if ONLY plot summary does nothing to stop any number of such sources from contributing to notability. Thus, I AGF that you are sufficiently mistaken to genuinely think you did a decent job of BEFORE, rather than actively malicious, because you freely admit you saw and discarded multiple sources that contribute to notability. I don't have to prove which sources these were: you acknowledged they existed in your nomination. Thus SOURCESMUSTEXIST isn't a proper characterization of anything I've said: You yourself said in your original nomination there were a sufficient number of adequate sources to establish notability, only (again, reading it in a charitablie light) failed to recognize them as such. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether pure plot summaries demonstrate notability is an academic point, since we would need other sources to write an article that does not run afoul of WP:NOTPLOT. A seasoned editor surely understands this (as indeed you seem to), and an actual WP:AGF reading of the nomination would read it in that light. TompaDompa (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel you're overlooking the fact that NOTPLOT outright states that what you're arguing for does not overrule NOTPLOT. To cite NOTPLOT in a bit more depth: "Wikipedia treats creative works (including, for example, works of art or fiction, video games, documentaries, research books or papers, and religious texts) in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works." NOTPLOT requires the content to be more multifaceted than just plot summary. Being verifiable doesn't automatically make a subject notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Time Lord; most of the article is about Time Lords as well (and most of the plot is similar between the two), and anything that is not can be inserted in a new section, perhaps 'Planet'. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Who Is The Doctor 2: The Unofficial Guide to Doctor Who has a two-page chapter "Psychic Papers: Gallifrey" with commentary on the how, why, and impact of the presentation of Gallifrey, plus some similar commentary focussed solely on the episode "Hell Bent". Which I guess would work equally well as commentary on Gallifrey as a setting of Time Lord society or Time Lord society located on Gallifrey. Daranios (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daranios it's a decent source, but the bulk of it is not really describing Gallifrey, and instead discussing Time Lord society and how it has changed throughout the show. Gallifrey is referred to only in terms of the setting of stories covering Time Lords, used as an umbrella term to refer to the Time Lords, or only referred to in a summary of plot developments or a synopsis of given events. Nearly everything about this coverage has an intrinsic tie to Time Lords, and strengthens the rationale that Gallifrey isn't really individually separate from Time Lords. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Time Lord or keep. I think with the two sources + many more with the listed drawbacks it would be possible to write a non-stubby article which also fullfills WP:NOTPLOT. And some commentary, like the wow-effect of letting Gallifrey appear in the show and connected risks will be a bit akward to incorporate into the suggested target. On the other hand I agree that most commentary on Gallifrey is linked to its population/society, so there would be overlap between those two articles. Daranios (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Time Lord per above; all sources on the planet double up on discussing the species and society it was home to. SilverTiger12 (talk) 06:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Adebayo

Whitney Adebayo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is only notable for achieving second place in a reality TV show. Nothing else about here is notable. There are references from a variety of sources but again these only relate to her appearance in one series of of the TV show and nothing else. Per WP:NOTDIR we don't have to have articles on every participant in a reality show, surely only the winner is (borderline) notable but people rarely remember who came second. 10mmsocket (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lazzat with Asad

AfDs for this article:
Lazzat with Asad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since creation in 2010 by a now-blocked user. Brought to AfD in 2010 but went to no consensus. There may be Urdu sources I’ve not found, but otherwise no indication of notability, Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wonder why we didn't just go through PROD deletion. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was previously PRODed. Mccapra (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG, seems nothing much about it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are many episodes on YouTube. It's clearly a real cooking TV show in Pakistan. Not surprisingly there aren't any sources in English, although there are lots of cooking blogs and pinterest posts in English by fans of the chef and his recipes. This is definitely a topic which could be notable, and deserves someone who speaks Urdu (or perhaps Arabic sources as well?).4meter4 (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It has no sources since its creation in 2010. Searched but nothing was found to show that this possibly will pass notability. This fails all notability guidelines. Mekomo (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ammad Quraishi

Ammad Quraishi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Being on a school board is not a prominent political position, even if he was the youngest. Article had previously been speedy deleted, both under this title and Ammad Uddin Quraishi. ... discospinster talk 05:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Move to Draft - Article reaches both general notability guidelines as established by Wikipedia standards as well as subject specific guidelines for a politician. A school board position in New Jersey is a state level office , thus reaching notability under subnational politician rules. Since an individual or role not accorded presumed notability may still reach notability thresholds through the general notability guidelines, it is important of note that the individual was the youngest muslim elected to public office in the United States (relevant see: Bushra Amiwala). It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous".
Sources cited are reliable, secondary sources of significant press coverage, which has primarily appeared in print or on regional air (TV/radio), and has since been archived. BernieBruh (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NPOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, being the youngest identity to hold an office in the US is pretty significant. LahrenFan21 (talk) 12:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Simons (politician) and Jaylen Smith (politician) and others were 18yo when elected mayors of their municipalities, so not really a first here. Djflem (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, mentioning Simons and Smith does give credibility to the WP:NPOL element as well as the WP:SIGCOV element. Simons coverage is local media, and Smith's mayoral election in a municipality 1/22nd the size of Quraishi's still holds notability. Smith of course benefits from national coverage, esp in relation to joining Clinton and Harris at events of course. LahrenFan21 (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @4meter4 While I do agree that school board office holders are typically considered WP:ROUTINE, as it was notable for Amiwala when published in 2019, it is notable that Quraishi holds a national title in that role. I understand your point on the sourcing of more media coverage, and am working accessing archived national news sources to attach to this article. BernieBruh (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a COI here? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
National title? There's no such thing as a national title for a local school board member. If you mean the claim that he is youngest muslim to be elected in the United States, I don't think that claim is something that is provable. For one, we don't typically go around collecting data on the religions (or ages) of school board members or any other minor elected office holder nationally, and two proving that claim would require analyzing the religions of every school board member and minor elected office holder who has ever held office historically in every city, township, and bureau with elected offices nationally. Somebody could been elected as an auditor in a small town who was younger and muslim thirty years ago, and it probably would have passed without fanfare. In other words, its a highly speculative claim, and the sourcing itself doesn't appear to support the claim under our policy at Wikipedia:EXTRAORDINARY.4meter4 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the poor choice of words. Appreciate you pointing that out. But yes, referring to the claim of being the youngest muslim to be elected in the United States. It's true that data on religions or ages aren't gone around to be collected, but the latter is public information via filing data and reports. The former can generally be deduced if not reported. I agree with you that someone could have been elected to another position who was younger (than 18) and longer ago, which would then need to be reflected. I disagree that it's a highly speculative claim, but can concede that the sourcing can be stronger on noting that superlative. There is an archived story in a national publication that I'm working to source that had made note of it. Regardless, I still think it makes sense to Keep the article live (not just because I worked on it), but to add a tag to get more source material or citations. BernieBruh (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an individual's already-thin claim to notability is not supported by any reliable sources then it is inappropriate to publish it. Putting the article in draft will give the opportunity to find archived sources, and I originally did that, but you re-published it anyway. ... discospinster talk 17:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was following the guidance you left on my talk page about moving the page back when ready for publication, though now I see I should have opted for "submit for review" option instead, so my apologies on that front. My understanding that the notability claim was supported by a reliable source, being The Record (in circulation since 1895). But I'll still work on attaching additional sources. Thanks, BernieBruh (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Record article only states that he's running, not that he's the youngest Muslim to be on a school board. ... discospinster talk 18:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can deduce people's religions based on what? Their names? Where they live? People of the muslim faith (like all major world religions) live all over the world and have many kinds of names. See if you can guess the religion of the person based on their name in this list: Ammar al-Basri, Peter Finch, Jermaine Jackson, Vinnie Paz, John Walker Lindh, Abdulahad AbdulNour, Hunayn ibn Ishaq, Keith Ellison, Leda Rafanelli, Gabriele Torsello, Rita Habib, Robert Dickson Crane, Shotaro Noda, Ryoji Aikawa, Masayoshi Ōhira, Tani Yutaka. Also where has there ever been a collection of the ages of all of the people who ever held an elected office in a searchable database? The answer: No where. To run for office in a town the official process varies from state to state. Depending on the state one lives in, one files to run for local office at sometimes the township level and in other places it might be administrated by the county or at the state level. While their might be a record of the names of past office holders at local level in a state document; typically the age of that person isn't recorded except on the filing document which is generally held in the archives of the township or the county. While there is the freedom of information act, figuring out even where to look to get the ages of past people in elected office would be very challenging; particularly for people elected prior to the internet era in a small town (of which there are more than 19,000 in the United States). That would require physically going down to the township building and digging through old election filing forms. Some of those might have been thrown out after a period of time, lost, or destroyed. Others locked away in a dusty file cabinet that no one has looked at in decades. The point is, in no way did someone actually compile all that data and definitively come to a conclusion on this claim. It's simple guesswork, which is meaningless.4meter4 (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, generally speaking/on average, yes we can deduce most people's religions based on their name or country of origin. (My family has a very stereotypically Jewish name, for example, and it doesn't make us any less Jewish.) There are many Wikipedia articles detailing names associated with religions or identities. Quraishi, some names in Arabic-language surnames, Jewish surnames to name a few. That doesn't negate your point about people of the muslim faith (like all major world religions) having many kinds of names, but cherry picking a few (including converts) to make the point is counterproductive. Regardless, a source cited in the article makes reference to the fact that Quraishi is Muslim. I'll be sure to cite it where appropriate. And sure there may not be a collection of all the ages of all of the people who ever held an elected office in a searchable database, but that isn't how we do research or source and present materials. Otherwise, there's no place for sites like Wikipedia on the internet. Contributors find sources and information and add or update articles as those sources are sought or are discovered, since there isn't a universal database containing all of the information. If that's the standard by which we're to source information, then we need to scrap this entire site. I do agree with you that it's not easy to source info and figuring out where to look to get some information is very challenging, but not impossible. Plus, even if someone didn't compile all that data and definitively come to the conclusion, a reasonable inference can be drawn, and titles can change hands over the years as someone else comes along, or uncovers a source that reveals new information. Best BernieBruh (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not how Wikipedia works. We have rules regarding WP:Verifiability. We also have rules regarding WP:No original research. Inference does not meet the standard of our verifiability rules, and making inferences as you suggest is a form of WP:OR which is not allowed under Wikipedia policy . Another one of those rules is WP:EXTRAORDINARY. This is an extraordinary claim, and it therefore requires extraordinary sourcing which means a minimum of three high quality references that are clearly independent of the subject (which excludes local media). So far there are zero sources that I would consider meet the standard we need to verify this extraordinary claim. In short we can't make this claim on wikipedia. And FYI, research of the kind I described above is what an academic or a journalist from a reputable publication would do before making the claim your making. That would be the standard of sourcing needed to publish that fact in a reputable journal or newspaper. Reliable publishers don't present guesswork as facts, and if they are guessing they say so up front by saying is "possibly" or "maybe". If I were to make that claim about Quraishi definitively being the youngest musilim American ever elected before an IRB board at my university while trying to get a journal article published I would get scoffed at with "how can you prove that?" questions. It wouldn't fly. And it doesn't fly here. Not without stronger evidence. 4meter4 (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No COI on the Quraishi article, but a potential COI on the Amiwala one, on which I've refrained from edits and additions. BernieBruh (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serving on a school board does not pass WP:NPOL, and the entirely expected existence of purely local coverage of the school board's activities is not sufficient to claim that a school board trustee has passed WP:GNG in lieu of having to satisfy NPOL. We're writing history here, not news — our job isn't to maintain an article about every individual person that somebody in Bergen County, New Jersey might have read about in their local newspaper yesterday, it's to maintain articles about people who will have national and/or international significance that will endure into the 2030s and 2040s and 2050s. School board trustees, however, almost never have anything of the sort. Bearcat (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skaro

Skaro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A large, entirely summary-style article covering the home planet of the Daleks, Skaro. All sources used in the article are either primary or information used for basic verification, and a BEFORE for Skaro turned up a lot of fantastic sources on the Daleks, but Skaro was only mentioned in passing in many of these. Skaro received reference in a lot of summaries of the Daleks and their origins, but did not receive any analysis separately from the Dalek species. I searched through News (Which only turned up plot summary and trivial mentions of the planet), Books (Which turned up several fantastic sources for the Dalek species, but only trivial mentions of the planet), and Scholar (Which turned up similar results to Books.) This subject is not individually notable of the Daleks, and is only mentioned in passing in every source that mentions it, lacking any form of SIGCOV that would mean it would pass the GNG. A logical AtD is to the Daleks, as it is their home planet and mentioned multiple times throughout the article in the species' backstory. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariló Montero

Mariló Montero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable journalist and presenter, cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails NPERSON and GNG –Davey2010Talk 19:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Park

Susan Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress. Could not find SIGCOV about her. Natg 19 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that she has roles in notable films/TV series, but they are usually minor roles. I was not able to find much beyond simple mentions of her in reliable sources. Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Usually", maybe but that means not always, not all, and indeed she is in the main cast of Snowpiercer and has recurring/signficant roles in other productions (see NY Times and other sources mentioning them) and the guideline requires significant roles in notable productions, not that none of her roles (or even only a small part of them) should be minor. Mushy Yank (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources are you looking at? I do not believe Cinema Daily US is an RS (seems like a film blog), and the Deadline articles that I have found are simple casting announcements. Natg 19 (talk) 18:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha McCarthy

Samantha McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete – The subject’s principal claim to notability from the external links in the article and my WP:BEFORE searches seems to be nine months, c. 70 episodes, as a relatively minor character on a UK soap opera, plus other one-off appearances. None of those are supported by decent secondary sources, so I suggest that the subject meets neither WP:NACTOR nor WP:BASIC. I also note that the article seems to have been almost perpetually unsourced. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in Time (Doctor Who)

Lost in Time (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A box set that released various Doctor Who serials that had episodes missing. The article is predominantly uncited and contains almost entirely primary citations, and a brief BEFORE turns up very little outside of watch guides for missing episodes. I can see a redirect to Doctor Who missing episodes as an AtD, but overall this is a largely non-notable DVD box set release not separately notable from the concept of missing episodes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avrum Rosensweig

Avrum Rosensweig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This biography is almost entirely self-sourced (or using a congregational bulletin as a source), citing blog entries or pages from his or his organization's websites or summarising the subject's opinions as published in op-ed pieces written by him. Wellington Bay (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avrum Rosensweig has literally changed the landscape of Canadian Jewish philanthropy by founding Ve’ahavta, Canada’s only Jewish rooted, humanitarian organization, in the country.
Over the years, the organization has helped tens of thousands of people on the streets of Toronto, as well as in countries like Guyana and Zimbabwe.
(See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Seth_Silverman, where work done by Dr. Michael Silverman on Ve’ahavta sponsored trips has saved literally thousands of lives.)
While Rosensweig retired years ago, and is no longer involved in the organization, Ve’ahavta continues to thrive as Canada’ s only Jewish humanitarian organization, living up to the universal ideals and values that he began the organization with.
So again, I think that the sources could be improved, but the page should certainly stay. Uiaeli (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no coverage to be found of this person in .ca websites, other than social media and primary sources. This appears to be PROMO, a rather long-winded, wordy article that doesn't have much sourcing that isn't connected to the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I am familiar with this person's name in Canada, specifically through knowledge of the NGO he founded. That and some other elements on the page fall under encyclopedic content. I have not contributed to that many pages, but I would like to spend a week or two cleaning this page up/re-sourcing to save this page from deletion if possible. Colinwhite613 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see a issues with listing involvement in the synagogue where he served in a leadership capacity as long as the information in balanced evenly and objective. As I understand it, this particular one was build by Holocaust survivors.
    ~~ Reehabmail (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also a point I wanted to bring up. These sources, while very real, would benefit form outside sources, there may not be a lot but there will be some, based on his written contributions published and the work with Ve'havta. this NGO is encyclopedia content. I hope this will be weighed, and the recent changes taken into acct. Uiaeli (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are many notable pages on Wikipedia that are contributors on various media sites that do not have a lot of sources in which others write about them, but their writing and exposure to their communities and audiences have made impacts. I am researching more sources now for this subject's namespace. The page looks like it has been cleaned up, and promotional material was removed (a lot of it). Some more summarizing and copy edits on expanded articles could be streamlined. I will post on the user's talk page with suggestions for the original contributor and will add some/remove other areas deemed not worthy. Ve'ahavta should not be ignored. His roles in my research is substantial, as well as his exposure to his community and messages against anti-hate campaigns/antisemitism.
    Reehabmail (talk • contribs) 22:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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. ✗plicit 04:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches (listed alphabetically)

Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches (listed alphabetically) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems rather excessive: there's also List of recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches. The latter could be converted into one or two tables with sortable columns. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Entirely unnecessary list that fails multiple guidelines, and better off removed. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2024 (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.

Miranda Hennessy

Miranda Hennessy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unnotable actress, fails GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Team (TV series)

Tiger Team (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 17:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC) WITHDRAWN due to the new citations provided below. I feel it now passes WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as it clearly fails GNG and lacks notability. — Mister Banker (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Strike SockPuppet vote DonaldD23 talk to me 01:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donaldd23 My bad! I did not leave any space between the link and the next sentence. It should work now. Thanks.Mushy Yank (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be just a blurb about it upcoming, nothing substantial. But if others think it is enough for notability I won't dispute. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One can add https://www.wired.com/2007/12/hackers-on-cour/ mentions in https://www.darkreading.com/perimeter/tiger-team-member-attacks-developers-not-apps https://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyle/court-tv-getting-makeover-in-08-idUSN14211084/ (repeated here https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/court-tv-plans-rebrand-2008-131955/ also in Variety) ; significant mention in Disguise (see excerpt here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/unauthorized-personnel). Fwiw, the short series is listed on the page about Court TV (a natural redirect if this is all judged insufficient). Mushy Yank (talk) 00:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)@Donaldd23[reply]
I think these are enough for it to pass WP:GNG, so I say KEEP. Another user voted to delete, so I won't withdraw my nomination. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually,@Donaldd23 you can withdraw, if that is what you wish (Wikipedia:WITHDRAWN); only, the closer cannot close the nomination as Speedy Keep despite your withdrawing, that is all. But thanks all the same.@MrSchimpf, what say you? -Mushy Yank. 02:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aruba Mirza

Aruba Mirza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. References are a mixture of not mentioning Mirza, passing mentions and interviews 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Aruba Mirza calls herself 'Papa ki pari'". ARY News. 24 July 2023.
  2. ^ "Voters declare Aruba Mirza winner of 'Tamasha Season 2'". The Express Tribune.
  • Draftify: For the time being until more reliable sources are added. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article includes sufficient references to meet GNG. Notable sources, such as The News (Ruling the Charts), ARY News (Papa Ki Pari, Kahani Kahan Se Shuru Hui), The News (Rang Mahal Final Episode), and The Express Tribune, provides substantial coverage of the subject's career, media appearances, TV roles, and win in a popular show. Additionally, other brief mentions in various sources contribute to satisfying the WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR talk 15:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly passes Wp:GNG and Wp:NACTOR. Subject has done multiple significant roles in notable Tv shows.

Zuck28 (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable name in drama industry and passes notability criteria. Referencing is enough to establish that, Urdu news items are also from mainstream Urdu media. Muneebll (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Despite the request, no coverage has been presented that show significant coverage. I see keep votes stating "clearly" notable or making the claim of being a "notable name" or having significant roles but not supported by references required by WP:NACTOR. Regardless of roles, there needs to be significant coverage to show it. Notability is not inherent. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NACTOR is met. Based on the provided references, each offers moderate coverage, and the combined use of multiple independent sources can effectively establish notability. — MimsMENTOR talk 09:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel otherwise which is why I say significant coverage has not been presented. Of the five presented as evidence in this AfD (note it is four as one is a duplicate), all fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA with the exception of this which I would question as reliable based on no listed editorial guidelines and advertising which includes "article publishing." I am open to review anything else someone wants to provide. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. While there are numerous sources available online covering her career, TV appearances, and roles, individually, they may not meet the threshold for significant coverage. However, when considered collectively, they do. As for your concern about paid content, none of the sources are affiliated with WP:NEWSORGINDIA, as they all come from Pakistani media, not Indian outlets (not saying that your indications are wrong or right). — MimsMENTOR talk 06:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is sometimes confusion about the name NEWSORGINDIA (which I think needs to be changed by the way), but there are several editors who agree it applies to media in that region as a whole, not just the country. Regardless, we can call it churnalism which is essentially the same thing. Reprinted press releases, paid media, etc. It doesn't have to be paid to fall under that guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Churnalism" can be addressed separately if you want to mention it in that context, and that's fine. However, NEWSORGINDIA still applies as a guideline for Indian media, even if editors agree it's intended for the broader subcontinental region (which I believe is what you were referring to). That said, I don’t see a valid reason to delete this article under WP:NEXIST. — MimsMENTOR talk 09:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I can no longer discuss as it is going in circles. Let me be clear......I agree with you on NEXIST. The problem is that I have searched for suitable sources and they do not exist. The ones presented by keep votes are not reliable or not significant. We don't just assume sources must exists if we have searched for and been unable to locate them. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR. Even if WP:GNG is not met, that doesn't matter as the sources prove an WP:SNG is met. SNGs are a perfectly valid pathway to establishing notability under policy.4meter4 (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is incorrect. WP:ANYBIO says people are presumed notable when there is significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources, but that people are only likely to be notable if they meet the following standards, of which NACTOR is one. That is, NACTOR creates a refutable likelihood of notability. The guideline specifically says meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. What really matters is the secondary sources from which the page can be written. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep has a clear majority but these aren't very strong arguments. Keep folks: what sources do you find the most convincing? If there are strong sources in Urdu, can we see them?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mithu Aur Aapa

Mithu Aur Aapa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage. Only reliable source on the page is DAWN and that is a simple mention. Nothing I can find online other than some social media and unreliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being opposed to deletion, are you voting keep with a redirect as an ATD?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am !voting Redirect (bolded word). And am opposed to deletion. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I saw that part about being opposed to deletion so I was wondering if it was a keep or redirect. Thanks for the clarification this is a redirect !vote, not a keep vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Behan Meri Dewrani

Meri Behan Meri Dewrani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage that I can find in a WP:BEFORE. Only verification taht it exists or at least existed. CNMall41 (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madiha Maliha

Madiha Maliha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage that I can find in a WP:BEFORE. Can verify it exist(ed) but nothing significant for notability. CNMall41 (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 Cut Hero

4 Cut Hero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK criteria showing no significant coverage from secondary reliable sources that is independent of the subject other than passing mentions — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and South Korea. – The Grid (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Support nomination rational. There are no sources or reviews of the book by reliable sources. Searched and all I found are book selling websites and unreliable review websites. Mekomo (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I found various sources, including https://www.asiae.co.kr/article/2019050311144057058 https://isplus.com/article/view/isp202304030015 for example; if it is judged insufficient I would suggest a redirect and merge to Lezhin Comics (an article that needs expansion and sourcing) Mushy Yank (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this not a passing mentions? Both are writing about their publisher entry to foreign markets in which 4 Cut Hero is basically written/promoted as part of like "here is some of their products". — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A) my !vote indicates an alternative in case the majority of other users disagree B) "Is a passing mention"? Are passing mentions, you mean? Let's see (rough horrible translation, hope you don't mind)

    #Godzilla-kun (pen name), the author of '4-Cut Hero' serialized in Lezhin Comics, is busy these days. This is because the long-running webtoon that has been serialized for six years since 2014 has recently succeeded in advancing into the US market, which means he has more work to do. On the Lezhin Comics application (app) that services Lezhin Comics comics, 4-Cut Hero is ranked in the top 10 in terms of US sales. Considering that the Lezhin Comics app is highly popular with American readers, 4-Cut Hero is also said to be well-received in the US market.

    (Asiae. I consider this not a passing mention, but maybe I'm wrong)

    '4-Cut Warrior' is a webtoon that began serialization in 2014, with approximately 78 million cumulative views and is currently serviced on 12 platforms in 5 countries. The diverse characters, dense plot, high-quality drawings, and gag codes at the right places, as well as the various elements that have been loved by readers for a long time, have become sufficient cornerstones for the production of an animation. The production was handled by the Chinese platform Bilibili.

    (Isplus, I consider this not a passing mention and it's not, in my opinion, equivalent to basically writ[ing about]/promot[ing] [the subject] as part of like "here is some of their products"
    But again, maybe I'm wrong; still, I am suggesting an ATD. Mushy Yank (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok noted, thanks for sharing your thoughts. However, even though I don't needed translation, IMO it's still passing mentions as 4 Cut Hero isn't the main topic for either reportings and my BEFORE before AfDing this article doesn't really shows otherwise. Regardless, I'm open to the alternative of just partial merging certain content if sourced rather than a full "cut-paste" as IMO it would be out-of-place for Lezhin Comics article. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Lukatch

Ilan Lukatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a journalist that seems to me to lack support from in depth coverage in independent sources. Appears borderline so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but the ten sources in Hebrew are absolutely dire:
1. Is a piece by him, not independent coverage of him
2. Is a passing mention of him in a band he played in in 1988
3. Doesn’t mention him
4. Passing mention in a brief listing
5. Passing mention
6. Doesn’t mention him
7. Doesn’t mention him
8. Interview with him (his first interview ever)
9. Decent, if rather brief, third party source
10. No longer accessible but looks decent.
That’s not enough to build a stand alone bio article on and it does look like the original creator of the Hebrew article was desperately scraping around for any mention they could find. Mccapra (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that those sources are sub-optimal. Whizkin (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR biography of a professional at work. The Hebrew article is refbombed. Our article is shorter, so there are less references, yet what we have is equally a mixed bag. gidonb (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:48, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

Television proposed deletions

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts § Alerts
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Television&oldid=1257921476"