Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television

Add links
From 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 toTelevision.It is one of manydeletion listscoordinated byWikiProject 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 atWP:AFD.Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page atWP: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 pageand 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 theedit summaryas 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 fewscripts and toolsthat can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed bya bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod,CfD,TfDetc.) 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'sdeletion policyandWP:AfDfor 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. Gohereto tweak which ones are scanned.

Related deletion sorting


Television

[edit]

Voltes V: Legacy – The Cinematic Experience

[edit]
Voltes V: Legacy – The Cinematic Experience(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)

The film is basically a recap ofVoltes V: Legacy.there is an upcoming re-release with new Japanese dubbing and new "never before seen scenes" but there is a lack of information for a separate article. Would be better to have this as a redirect to the source material.Hariboneagle927(talk)01:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Batra

[edit]
Hemant Batra(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 article is heavily refbombed (just to make it difficult to judge the notability). On a closer look, I didn't find any in-depth reference. Due to COI concerns, I don't think it is possible to maintain such articles even if he is weak notable. Most of the references are sponsored and not acceptable perWP:RSNOI.FailsWP:GNG.Gheus(talk)19:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laxmichya Paulanni

[edit]
Laxmichya Paulanni(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)

Attempted redirect as there is no significant coverage that shows notability outside of unreliable sources, mentions, and general announcements. Created by blocked user and IPs (likely LOUTSOCKs) have objected to the redirect so here we are.CNMall41(talk)21:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit summary notes why it was removed. --CNMall41(talk)22:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Begins to Shine (Teen Titans Go!)

[edit]
The Night Begins to Shine (Teen Titans Go!)(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 evidence of notability for these episodes together, better covered at main articlesIndagate(talk)09:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John "Hannibal" Smith

[edit]
John "Hannibal" Smith(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)

FailsWP:GNGtagged for notability since 2021Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her)02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hanna (character)

[edit]
Hanna (character)(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)

According to my Google search, this character is not individually notable from the film or television series. Sources only mention the character in passing, or not in a way that would meet SIGCOV or individual notability. As for the sources in the article, they are also passing and do not prove individual notability. (Keep in mind that the character is a main character, so obviously there will be a lot of sources, but for individual notability, there should be at least a few reliable, secondary sources about the specific character and their impact, just in case any fights break out if I don't say this.)

I'd say a delete is best because whichever page shall this article redirect to would be hard to decide.Spinixster(trout me!)14:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2004 in Turkish television

[edit]
2004 in Turkish television(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)

tagged uncited for many years and does not seem to be notableChidgk1(talk)13:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in thedeletion sortinglists for the following topics:TelevisionandTurkey.Chidgk1(talk)13:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in thedeletion sortinglists for the following topics:HistoryandLists.-My, oh my!(Mushy Yank)17:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deproDed the page. I have seen other years taken to AfD. But why? This is a pretty standard way to approach history of television by country. Mexico has them, Korea has them, and so on. Turkey is a major country with a long history of television. What's the issue? Non-notable, how? I would!vote Keep but that would imply restoring all the other years. But I don't understand. It's very easy to source every event with books and/or news. And for general coverage, just open Yanardağoğlu, Eylem,Television in Turkey: Local Production, Transnational Expansion and Political Aspirations,Springer International Publishing, 2020; "The Transformation of the Media System in Turkey: Citizenship, Communication, and Convergence", Springer International Publishing, 2021;The Regulation of Turkish Network Industries.(2022), Springer International Publishing. A source for each and every programme broadcast is easily found. I am seriously confused.-My, oh my!(Mushy Yank)18:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to keep it vote keep. I don’t think that would implying restoring other years as some years in television are more notable than others.Chidgk1(talk)05:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK:Keep and restore all years.This year in Turkish television is notable and so are apparently all years I checked, given the existence of sources for individual events and about trends/years in the Turkish history of television. Also for navigation reasons.and procedural reasons; targeting one year after another to delete the whole range of articles (that precisely make sense as a whole) brick by brick is not a good idea when the general topic is notable.
    some years in television are more notable than others.Maybe (I don't think so) but then, it seems you want to have ALL years of Turkish television deleted and I am very much against that idea. Is it your idea?
    Another solution would be to change the approach by creating lists by decades and redirecting/merging the individual years (in)to the decades (2000s in Turkish televisionand so on) but I won't do it myself (as I favour individual years)-My, oh my!(Mushy Yank)08:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No I have not proposed deleting all years and that is not my idea.Chidgk1(talk)11:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very well, I had the wrong impression, my apologies. -My, oh my!(Mushy Yank)11:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: there are only 4 years left in the category. The ones that have been deleted lately were, if I am not mistaken, in the 2000s and 2010s The other years haven't been created yet.-My, oh my!(Mushy Yank)09:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dettric Jones

[edit]
Dettric Jones(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)

FailsWP:NACTOR,previously CSD A7.WP:TOOSOON- wait until Jones becomes notable. Prior versions draftified,WP:DRAFTIFYimplies that this might not be unilaterally returned to Draft. Even so I suggest deletion. 🇺🇦FiddleTimtrentFaddleTalk to me🇺🇦04:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modhalum Kaadhalum

[edit]
Modhalum Kaadhalum(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 actually the third deletion discussion. Originally deleted underthisdiscussion in early 2023 prior to being recreated under alternative name which was then a no consensus atthisdiscussion. Out of the 21 references listed on the pagethisis the only reference that may be notable but I cannot read it so not sure. The rest fall underWP:NEWSORGINDIAor are otherwise unreliable. Would recommend a redirect to the original program it is based on (Yeh Hai Mohabbatein).CNMall41(talk)03:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:There are reliable sources present, opposed to deletion. Also have a strong references from (The Times of India, medianews4u.com, Dinamalar, Indian Express Tamil). It was one of the famous show, and also notable cast. Original program and Tamil version are very different.. story was also changes. also cast also different. the original version was aired 1,895 episodes (lot of cast and long story), Tamil version was aired only 304 episodes. i am against of recommend a redirect to the original program. i don't Kmow why, You are very interested in deleting this article. This is third time for Nomination of Modhalum Kaadhalum for deletion.Strong Keep--P.Karthik.95(talk)06:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The references that you state (which I am assuming are the ones on the page) are all unreliable and fall underWP:NEWSORGINDIA.Cast, number of episodes, it being a "famous show" has no bearing on notability unless there is significant coverage from RELIABLE sources to support. Can you link to the sources that are significant (and reliable)? Please do not link to anything that falls under NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41(talk)07:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a source evaluation:simply grouping all the TOI sources under RSNOI without properly evaluating each and every source seems inappropriate especially when the RFC on TOI does acknowledge that only some articles have issues.
After all, this is an Indian TV show and the only sources that will discuss this is Indian sources. Simply eliminating almost every source under this RSNOI from an information page doesn’t seem like a well thought-out rationale, especially when only TOI is on WP:RSPS.—Karnataka20:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that was not done. They were evaluated and are churnalism falling under NEWSORGINDIA. If there is one you feel isn't, please provide the link and I will have a look. --CNMall41(talk)20:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a perspective to have. However, being usable does not mean it can be used to establish notability. That is also the reason why I did not discredit these simply for being from the TOI. The many RfCs have concluded that the TOI needs additional consideration to determine if if it reliable for that specific reference. I checked them all and these are churnalism and promotional. If you want to provide some that you feel can be used to establish notability, I will have a look and withdraw the nomination if they are usable to establish notability. --CNMall41(talk)19:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bulbulay characters

[edit]
List of Bulbulay characters(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)

FailsWP:NLISTand is basically aWP:CFORKof characters already listed inBulbulaymain Wikipedia page. Only three characters are sourced and the references do not match the description provided (I will stop short of saying they areWP:FAKEREF). I would normally recommend a redirect as anWP:ATDbut do not believe one would be needed here.CNMall41(talk)02:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again,WP:SPLITLISTsays when it is appropriate, not that it can be done despite notability. Must still meetWP:NLIST.Can you provide the sourcing that shows this? --CNMall41(talk)17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sachs

[edit]
Daniel Sachs(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)

FailsWP:SIGCOV.Refs are passing mentions, profiles, about us pages and other misc/non-specific coverage. FailsWP:BIO.scope_creepTalk11:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is WP:SICOV?Ruccc(talk)12:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ruccc,Scoop creep meanWP:SIGCOV.Vanderwaalforces(talk)12:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood!Ruccc(talk)14:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 birthday.se Appears to be a file of birthdays of people. This establishes that he exists. Yes No Probably not. Probably user-provided. ?
2 www.dn.se/kultur-noje/ An interview No. Yes Yes No
3 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagens_industri This is probably an improperly entered reference, but it links to a Wikipedia article. So it is either incorrectly formed or circular ? Not about the subject No. ?
4 news.cision.com Announcement that he has left a company. Probably not. Reads like a press release. Yes Probably No
5 www.dagensmedia.se Another announcement that he has left the company. Probably not. Reads like a press release. Yes Probably No
6 www.di.se/nyheter A press release about a job change No. Yes. Probably No
7 www.realtid.se A list of attendees at Davos Yes No, passing mention. Probably Yes
8 www.opensocietyfoundations.org A profile as one of the directors of the foundation No. Yes Probably No
9 web.archive.org/web An account of the founding of the Höj Rösten Foundation Yes No, passing mention. Probably No
10 www.dn.se A press release that "Sachs wants to scrutinize capitalism" No. Yes Probably No
11 www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum A Forbes contributor piece No. No, passing mention of subject. No. No
12 www.apolitical.foundation Profiles of board members No. Yes No. No
13 www.resume.se Another press release No. Yes No. No
This source assessment table is based on this version of the article:[1].References were added to the article while I was assessing the sources, and I revised the table. The addition of more sources was not material.
As noted above, there is an extensive history, which includes previous versions of articles on the subject, as well as redirects, and an article about a fictional person. This article should be cut down to a redirect.Robert McClenon(talk)00:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon:I'm sorry, but I don't think this reflects the reality of some of the sources in the article. Comments below.
1. Agreed.
2. Mostly an interview, but also covers other material, which I'd argue is secondary. Described above.
3. No, the wiki link follows the norm for how we cover press material, same as other sources in the article – the name of the publication is linked. Not the name of the article, which is an offline source (or accessible thoughsv:Mediearkivet). Not all sources are online sources. This is nine pages inDagens Industri,mostly but not only interview material. Described above. Can be checked by pretty much anyone with a Swedish university account (or access to Mediearkivet, provided to some editors by Wikimedia Sweden). As noted above, I've not been able to locate the online equivalent.
4. Agreed.
5. Disagree. Unlikely this is merely a press release, for four reasons: a) Unlike Cision, Dagens Media does produce journalism, which merits that we take a closer look; b) it's the same day as the press release in 4., but with different content, noting things which were not present in that press release c) it's signed (Eva Wisten), d) it contains material unlikely to have been in a press relase, such as noting that he'll "be on paternal leave and think". This reads like a reaction to the press release in 4., but someone actually having written an article based on other sources.
6. Definitely not. This is an article, takes up most of a page in the leading Swedish financial newspaper, and doesn't read at all like a press release to me. Why do you think it would be one?
7. Agreed.
8. Agreed.
9. Agreed.
10. Uncertain. Not terribly interesting as a source anyway.
11. Agreed.
12. Agreed.
13. Agreed.
14. (Inthe current version.) Missing. Added before this was posted, but after the assessment, I suppose.
Could you please explain your reasoning around 2, 3, 5 and 6? /Julle(talk)02:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On ref 2 it does say the Pallas met him for conversation. I can't read it fully as paywalled, but it does look an interview.scope_creepTalk06:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. "Much of this is interview material, but not all of it", I wrote above, and then "Mostly an interview, but also covers other material, which I'd argue is secondary" in the comment to the source assessment above. (: /Julle(talk)11:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other material is likely provided by the PR agency. It put the reference in the context of a interview and can't be used to prove notability. It not a valid.scope_creepTalk13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Ref 5 it reads a profile generated from a press-release. That fact that its bylined doesnt add much to it. It reads like a 300 word profile and is not in-depth.scope_creepTalk06:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since we have a press release from exactly the same day (4.), that would mean that they'd sent out two different press releases on the same topic, with different information (since much of the background in 5. is missing in 4.). To me, that seems much more unlikely than a journalist taking a look at the press release in 4. and writing something based on other sources than the press release (since it contains information not in the press release in 4).
(It's still not a longer piece, no.) /Julle(talk)11:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks and reads like conjecture, is not indepth and is not valid.scope_creepTalk13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On Ref 3. The reference format is fine. This is a financial paper similar to Bloomberg and the Financial Times. Its is likely paid PR.scope_creepTalk06:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not intimately familiar with Bloomberg and the Financial Times, but this is the main article in this issue of the newspaper. I find it extremely unlikely that this would be paid PR, that's not how Dagens Industri works and they'd completely resign their position as the dominating financial newspaper in Sweden if they presented paid material as journalism. Why would we assume it's paid PR? /Julle(talk)11:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is mechanism used to market themselves. Billionaires and millionaire are extraordinary secretive, they don't like their business dealing and their private lifes being made pubic, generally speaking. They build a public facade, their brand in the modern era using PR agencies so they are always shown in a good light. That is known thing. Lastly, its not necessarily paid material as journalism. You need to read up on it. All papers take the marketing dollar, more so since the coming of social media when it the industry was absolutely eviscerated, more or less right across the world from about 2007-2008. Its recovered now because many of them are behind paywalls and legislation that has come in to protect the industry but for many years, journalism as a practice was hit very badly. So the boundary between real journalism and all this other "crap" that came in was blurred and they used that money to effectively save their industry. Real journalism is making a return but for certain things like this, you don't know if its paid for. You really have to look, particularly for this type of source. So it could be potentially be a good reference right enough, but its hard to verify and I'm not confident considering the subject matter, that its not been paid for.scope_creepTalk13:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Georges

[edit]
Sascha Georges(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)

Cant't see any claim to notability; the band for which he sang is (imo) non-notable & up for deletion, otherwise I would redirect.TheLongTone(talk)13:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18

[edit]
Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18(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)

Unaccepted draft exists atDraft:Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 18with several rejections, edits from multiple contributors and a longer history.2000editorhas ignored this and pushed something with less information at this point that is questionable if the pre-release publicity articles show enough to meet notability. The ideal solution would be to continue to work on the draft and get that accepted, but given this has been recreated by 2000editor several times, AFD is probably the best option to resolve this via consensus rather than one editor ignoring what others are respectfully working on.Ravensfire(talk)17:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment there. Seems to be anWP:IDHTorWP:CIRissue. Either way, it is becoming disruptive. --CNMall41(talk)02:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Shetty

[edit]
Dinesh Shetty(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)

RedirecttoIndia's Ultimate Warrior.The coverage seems to beWP:BLP1Eas it is all from March 2022, when he won the competition.JTtheOG(talk)17:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RedirecttoIndia's Ultimate Warrior.Pharaoh of the Wizards(talk)16:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Monarch of the Glen

[edit]
List of characters in Monarch of the Glen(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 list of characters that is completely unreferenced.WP:SIGCOVcould not be found.Jontesta(talk)02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:Was previously at AfD under the title ofWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minor characters in Monarch of the Glenso ineligible for soft deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,StarMississippi03:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkuk TV

[edit]
Kirkuk 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)

The subject of this article may well be notable but it is largely incomprehensible owing to very poor English. I understand AfD is not for cleanup but I think we’re in TNT territory with this article.Mccapra(talk)20:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:I'd like to remind participants that we are not here to discuss the quality of thecontentsof the article, but thenotability of its topic.The ever-popular WP:TNT essay is not a policy-supported reason for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Owen×☎21:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare Theater

[edit]
Nightmare Theater(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)

Fairly new article about a non-notable TV show; created by a new editor. No sources; no formatting.Mvcg66b3r(talk)16:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was one of Utah's longest running television shows and was very popular. I will be updating sources. As for formatting I will learn and improve the page.Intergalacticlanguage(talk)17:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why wasn’t this drafted so that the creator can be helped, instead of having to defend the page at an Afd, which is pretty stressful?Draft,please, if the creator and other users agree, speedy-draft, if such a thing exists.I don’t think that nominating a new page 20 minutes after it was created was the best approach. ’Not ready for Main space”, sure but explain it and draftify is, if the creator is a newcomer/apparently not very experienced contributor, the most constructive path imv. -My, oh my!(Mushy Yank)21:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatted the page roughly. The claim that it was the longest show in Utah and coverage might be enough toKeepthis. If not,redirect and merge (in)toKTVX#Historyplease. Very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my!(Mushy Yank)22:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Please note that the Utah TV show in this article is entirely distinct from the Indiana TV show of the same name starringSammy Terry.The Sammy Terry character was on Indiana TV from 1962 to 1989, occasionally thereafter, continuously makes personal appearances, and still produces web content; Sammy Terry has plenty of reliable sources (print news and at least one book), far beyond what the article currently references. If this article survives, it should be moved to something likeNightmare Theater (Utah),withNightmare Theaterbeing a redirect to Sammy Terry or a disambiguation page.Vadder(talk)23:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree that, even if enough sourcing demonstrating notability could be found, the Utah show is not the primary topic. The Indiana show has much more material to work with.Sammi Brie(she/her •t•c)15:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I did the initial page, and I believe Nightmare Theater (Utah) would be the proper title. This would avoid confusion with all the other Nightmare Theater and Theatres out there. While the show was broadcast on a Salt Lake City station, it was received statewide.Intergalacticlanguage(talk)16:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,DoczillaOhhhhhh, no!22:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science Room

[edit]
Science Room(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)

Lack of notability. Note that most of the article is effectively unsourced & tagged as such. Surely if there was any true notability for this lump of fancruft a cite or two could have been whipped up.TheLongTone(talk)14:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!06:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete:Agree with above, not really notable. (I would vote for a redirect to the relevant List of SNL sketches by year page, but I noticed there's been a discussion on whether to merge those pages into the main article, so I'll pass that off for now.)Spinixster(trout me!)14:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Boross

[edit]
Paul Boross(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)

Doesn't meetWP:CREATIVEwith only minor roles in various TV and music. I can't find any sources getting close to discussing him. This is just the latest iteration in attempts to promote him as a speaker going back to 2014 (I'vealready removedthat).SmartSE(talk)08:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,✗plicit08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santhwanam 2

[edit]
Santhwanam 2(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)

Probable failure of thenotability guideline for films,but the more pressing concern is the amount ofsockpuppetrythis article has attracted. I didn't think it was appropriate to tag this underCSD G5,as a few other editors have worked on this, but at least two socks have edited this, and most of the rest comes from IP addresses that have edited the same articles as the socks and geolocate to the same city, suggesting block evasion. I also have concerns about the sources, many of which look likepaid promotion disguised as news coverage,and aquick look for better onesdid not reveal anything promising.—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)03:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,✗plicit08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myself Allen Swapan

[edit]
Myself Allen Swapan(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)

Reviewed during New page Patrol. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Bangladeshi streaming-only series. Of the two references, one is a review and the other is a link to their own commercial. Article was deleted in 2023 due to creation by a banned user and recreated February 2024 by a new user.North8000(talk)11:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,✗plicit13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Otero Lárez

[edit]
Alejandro Otero Lárez(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 that failsWP:SIGCOV.No indication of significance. FailsWP:BIO.scope_creepTalk15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not, from long established consensus. Celebrity awards are generally non-notable, unless the internationally known like the oscars.scope_creepTalk07:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the guideline says "The person has received awell-known and significant awardor honor "(which Mr Venezuela seems to be) and nothing about beinginternationally known(which Mr Venezuelais,being part of international pageants selections, btw) let alone aboutlike the oscars(why not the Nobel prizes to put the bar even higher?), and that "long-established consensus", although it might indeed exist, should not prevail over the current guideline in my opinion. Thank you all the same. NB-You might want to change the guideline and indicate that limitation if such a consensus really exists and is indeed accepted by a majority of users. I certainly would oppose such a change myself, so please ping me if you start such a discussion about it, thanks. (I do not think, anyway, that Mr Universe nor Mr Venezuela can be called "celebrity awards", not in a derogative way at least.) I'll therefore stand by my!vote, if I may. -My, oh my!(Mushy Yank)18:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what the guideline says but you dont understand the different classes of awards and what they are actually worth, and what folk strive and crave for. Its not this. Its right down the list of significance and that is consensus. Indeed your!vote is your!vote, but this has all be discussed beforehand, years ago. If you haveWP:THREEsources, please post them up. Also its worth noting an award isn't generally sufficient on its own, unless its a really good award, likely a decent medal for example. If was a good award, its a good indication the person is notable. If was a good award and there was no coverage, I wouldn't have sent to Afd. I would have spent time trying to update it and add sources. Hope that helps.scope_creepTalk21:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,DoczillaOhhhhhh, no!16:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Iyou dont understand the different classes of awards and what they are actually worth.Thank you, sure, maybe. But a link explaining how "Mr Venezuela" is neither well-known nor significant and is not a "decent medal' and maybe, one showing thatthis has all be discussed beforehand, years agowould be nice. I am not sure I understand the rest of your reply. Also please note he is generally simply referred to asAlejandro OteroAgain, his roles in notable telenovelas could also be considered significant so that, on top of the award, a redirect, at least, should be discussed.-My, oh my!(Mushy Yank)18:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!21:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2018

[edit]
Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2018(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 on same reasoning in theAfD for the 2023 ceremony.Main pageZee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awardsexists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Attempted (twice) to redirect as anWP:ATDbut IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point.CNMall41(talk)19:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!23:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!23:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2019

[edit]
Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2019(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 on same reasoning in theAfD for the 2023 ceremony.Main pageZee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awardsexists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Attempted (twice) to redirect as anWP:ATDbut IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point.CNMall41(talk)19:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!23:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!23:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2020–21

[edit]
Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2020–21(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 on same reasoning in theAfD for the 2023 ceremony.Main pageZee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awardsexists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Attempted (twice) to redirect as anWP:ATDbut IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point.CNMall41(talk)19:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!23:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!23:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2022

[edit]
Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards 2022(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 on same reasoning in theAfD for the 2023 ceremony.Main pageZee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awardsexists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Attempted (twice) to redirect as anWP:ATDbut IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point.CNMall41(talk)19:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have been through this before. SPLITLIST is not a notability guideline. Can you point out the references that talk about this as a whole? This vote is a continued fallacy by assertion. --CNMall41(talk)00:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!23:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!23:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Torontow

[edit]
Michael Torontow(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)

FailsWP:NACTOR.Bit-part actor.scope_creepTalk14:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find either anything in previews nor any mention of him in the play reviews. It a complete mystery to me how they can jump to a keep!vote almost immediately without presenting any evidence perWP:THREE.I did a search using reliable sources search which covers the major Canadian newspapers and not a thing came up, on him. There is reviews of the plays. You would think there would be some mention outwith passing mentions.scope_creepTalk14:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I think he is 46, so he is well advanced in his career.Aszx5000(talk)15:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have hit on a crucial point there. I need to remember that for the future. Almost middle-aged and no reviews. Good point.scope_creepTalk15:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewikizoomer:What sources exactly. You seem to flit from Afd to Afd without providing any evidence for you keep!votes.WP:THREEis considered best practice for proving the person is notable. Do you have any reference that prove this person is notable?scope_creepTalk16:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment:keep!votes would benefit from specifying which sources establish Notability here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Eddie891TalkWork17:38, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThisWP:SPAeditor has made few edits to Wikipedia.scope_creepTalk09:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Owen×☎11:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.Apart from the CBC story, this article lacksWP:SIGCOVin reliable national sources. The subject failsWP:GNG.— Precedingunsignedcomment added byDesiMoore(talk•contribs)15:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepa quick BEFORE finds an in-depth significant media coverage - Ottawa Citizen 2004 (ProQuest240730536;GNG met with other articles already mentioned.. A lot of other material (224 hits in Proquest!).Nfitz(talk)01:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see a bit of international coverage on the actor, some reviews, even country wide would be ideal. Torontow is an Ottawa born guy and local papers always report on their local folk. It their duty of care, if you like and a well known phenomena. It likely failsWP:AUD.scope_creepTalk10:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUDis reserved for companies and organisations,Atlantic306(talk)22:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the only piece on him and it is from a minor Canadian newspaper from Ottawa, and the subject is from Ottawa. There is no SIGCOV that I can find on him as a notable person in any national RS in any country (even Canadian). Given his job is promotion, Scope Creep's reference toWP:AUDin not unreasonable. At 46, if this is all he has, he is unlikely to be a notable person in his profession of performing? His Wikipedia article would be the biggest 'plank' in his notability. thanks.Aszx5000(talk)08:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

[edit]

Television proposed deletions

[edit]
See also:Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts § Alerts
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Television&oldid=1249878315"