Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television

WP:DELSORT/TV

	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

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:

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.
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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

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

Buang Ruk Kamathep

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

Unreferenced cross-wiki spam. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stanley Cup Western Conference Finals broadcasters

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of reliable, secondary sources, aside from WP:ROUTINE sources, to satisfy WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating List of Stanley Cup Eastern Conference Finals broadcasters for the same reason. Conyo14 (talk) 01:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will cite reliable sources to make sure it does not get deleted. Khoa41860 (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What's next? A list of ice cleaners in the Conference Finals? GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Ice hockey, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: I doubt anything has changed since the first nomination, back in 2016, that sufficiently resolves the notability concerns here. This is actually the second time this year the creator has created these lists — the first attempts, in January, were speedily deleted as G4 (the 2016 nomination closed as delete). I don't know if G4 is still sufficiently valid here, but the potential of persistent recreation will inevitably lead to salting sooner rather than later. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have the ability to see prior versions of this article. Though if it appears that the content was copied, then I would definitely say speedy. Conyo14 (talk) 06:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: per WP:NLIST. No more now than in 2016 are there reliable sources discussing these broadcasters as a collective group, and I defy the article creator to proffer any. The guidelines of list creation require more than "Ooh, I think this would be neat!" Recreating this was borderline abusive, and adds to the growing list of such actions that Khoa41860's racking up. Sooner or later Khoa41860 needs to learn how to operate within policies and guidelines, or ANI will do the job for them. Ravenswing 14:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need if only updating templates. 2600:1700:B0A1:5F0:58C:58FA:772A:DCB6 (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to delete when I fully update the list up to the most recent Conference Finals, and all errors have been updated. Also, I need to cite more reliable citations with publications like CBC, TSN, NBC, and ESPN/ABC without any YouTube videos. Khoa41860 (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updating the list to the most recent event does not address the rationales for deletion. Ravenswing 18:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NRT News

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

Even though the acceptance of WP:TNT is very far from universal, I think this article is of such a low quality that deletion on this ground is reasonable. The article is short and disorganized, the phrasing is unencyclopedic, and it cites just one relevant source. Is this article suitable for an encyclopedia in its current state? No. Is its current state useful as a starting point for improvement? Again, no. Janhrach (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Companies, and Iraq. Janhrach (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - AfD is not the place for article cleanup. If you feel article needs to be improved, edit it. This article is by no means an extreme case that would warrant WP:TNT. --Soman (talk) 11:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since the nominator asks for deletion and not for cleanup, there is no procedural reason to close early as keep. The discussion has to come down to whether TNT deletion is warranted or not. Since 1 person thinks it is and 1 person thinks it's not so far, the discussion should be allowed to continue. Geschichte (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 5 interwiki links, de:Nalia Radio and Television looks good for notability, WP:Deletion is not cleanup, and this one is short enough to clean up or expand easily. I removed two wonky sentences and added a source. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Filmy

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wait, but why you actually said it passes WP:GNG earlier? And you removed the notability tags twice when I added them. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions change. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Donaldd23, Sure, I just wanted to seek some clarification. Better late than never. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources covering production, controversy and critical appraisal are in my opinion enough for this to be retained. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Momina Duraid: I’d suggest we redirect this, if not deleted, because it doesn’t meet GNG. Fwiw, it was created by LOUTSOCK (Special:Contributions/154.80.67.71) and later expanded by Nauman335, our acclaimed UPE sock master. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Podcats

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and France. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ian_Parovel#Filmography: not opposed to keep (broadcast on major French networks during years, some sources but no time to improve it) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creepy Crawlies

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cosgrove_Hall_Films#1980s: for now; but some sources seem to show this could deserve a standalone page (like https://c3z3.com/www.animatormag.com/issue-17/issue-17-page-23/ which is based on an interview but offers comments on the production), so not opposed to Keep -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Jefferson, David (Autumn 1986). "Francis Vose director of Creepy Crawlies at Cosgrove Hall". Animator. No. 17. Archived from the original on 2024-08-11. Retrieved 2024-08-11.
  The article notes: "Creepy Crawlies is a new series about seven insects that live at the bottom of the garden. They find things we would regard as rubbish, but they see it differently. ... The animation team is lead by director, Francis Vose, Rachel and Loyd are animators and Mark and Bryan are the cameramen. Vose is given the script and he breaks down each scene into shots. ... The Creepy Crawlies set is unusual in that it is circular in design and can be viewed from all sides. The whole thing is on wheels and can be rotated. This gives depth within a shot because all the available studio space can be given over to the one large set. It also saves space by being able to revolve any side towards the camera."
2. MacDonald, Keith (1987-01-03). "After Samantha for breakfast". Manchester Evening News. Archived from the original on 2024-08-11. Retrieved 2024-08-11 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Christmas card that proved the biggest talking point this year was covered in creepy crawlies, the creations of the Chorlton cum Hardy fun factory of Cosgrove Hall productions where ITV's latest pre-school series has been born. The Creepy Crawlies, which starts on Wednesday, are a colourful lot — in fact the card carried a suggestion that the creepy crawlies might be detached and framed. Paul Nicholas supplies all seven voices for Mr Ancient, an elderly caterpillar; Ariadne, a fluttery spider; Mr Harrison, a rather pompous snail; Lambeth, a body-building beetle; Anoraka, a woodlouse; a worm called Suppose the Nose; and a very pretty Ladybird."
3. Powell, Lynne (1987-01-07). "Lynne Powell's TV Star Choice". Birmingham Metronews. Archived from the original on 2024-08-11. Retrieved 2024-08-11 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Just Good friends' Penny would think this highly appropriate Paul Nicholas, alias Vince in the hit BBC series, turns up as one of The Creepy Crawlies on children's TV today. Silken-voiced Paul is the narrator and every single voice in the series, including Lambeth the body-building beetle, Anorak the wood louse and pompous snail Mr Harrison. The new 13-part series, on Central at 4 p.m. is repeated tomorrow."
4. Inglis, Ruth (1987-03-30). "How to animate a cartoonist". The Guardian. ProQuest 186765378. Archived from the original on 2024-08-11. Retrieved 2024-08-11 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Hall and Cosgrove had an idea as Walt Disney realised before them that animators did their best work as a team. Unlike most other artists who tend to bloom in private, car toonists need to test things out together. Two young animators at Cosgrove Hall for example, had cogitated for months on how to get Worm in and out of his hole in gradual stages in The Creepy Crawlies, a series now showing on Thames for the under-fives; they ended up by making 31 different lengths of worm sculptures for this saga of suburban fauna."
5. "Thames variety". Screen International. No. 586. 1987-02-07. p. 32. ProQuest 963226852.
  The article notes: "Creepy Crawlies, 13 x 10 min. From Thames' subsidiary Cosgrove Hall Productions, comes a new original pre-school series which introduces an entirely new set of Cosgrove Hall characters living at the bottom of a suburban garden. Paul Nicholas provides the voice of narrator."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Creepy Crawlies to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains in VR Troopers

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

This is a non notable spinout from List of VR Troopers characters. Both lists fail WP:SIGCOV but we have to start somewhere. The other list would be an acceptable redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the "Major Villains" to the appropriate section of List of VR Troopers characters. As said in the nomination, that list is, itself, devoid of reliable sources and could potentially eventually be merged into the main VR Troopers article, but for now, condensing it down to a single character list would be the appropriate first step in figuring out the best way to present the information. Everything beyond the "Major Villains" section are just minor characters and one shot "Monsters of the Week", so should not be merged. Rorshacma (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per Rorshacma. We shouldn't have multiple non-notable lists about the same topic, but a selective merge would allow editors to re-organize this material. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who robots

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

WP:OR without independent sources or any indication of notability. There isn't anything other than a WP:DIRECTORY of Doctor Who episodes that might feature a robot. Wikipedia doesn't support repeated WP:SYNTH lists where editors research patterns across television episodes. Editors should fix the main character list instead of expanding their flaws across multiple faulty lists. Jontesta (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Deleting a well-established article that has been refined and improved by numerous contributors, and which many users find valuable, undermines the collective effort and the utility it provides.

2. Wikipedia's scope has expanded, allowing for more inclusive content. Articles that were deleted a decade ago due to non-notability are now encouraged and considered relevant.

3. While source citations were less emphasized when I initially created the article, contributors have since verified and corrected any inaccuracies, ensuring the article's reliability. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well established articles don't exactly get a free pass from discussions about their quality and issues they may have on the website. They need to be verifiable and notable to continue to exist on the website.
While true, that is primarily due to new sources being discovered allowing for more revivals on articles where that sourcing did not exist at the time, not due to any laxing of restrictions.
There are only four citations on the article, and many entries are unsourced and are only a redirect to another topic they're a part of. Even if this is kept, it needs a major overhaul to verify its contents as a whole.

Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are there any articles on robotic characters in the various books discussing Doctor Who's science? I recall seeing at least one or two, but searching for them proves difficult given that most searches for "Doctor Who robot" tends to just pull results from the episode Robot (Doctor Who). If nothing else can be found I'd suggest a partial merge to list of List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, as several of these characters (Such as Autons, Yeti, and Quarks) do have associations with several entries currently on the list, with some of the robots that are considered species potentially being included in that list as well (Such as the Roboforms, Sandminer Robots, Mechonoids, for example). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging the major robots to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens is a good idea. Toughpigs (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the sofa

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

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that is promoting a non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. WP:BEFORE does show that this phrase has been used in passing by a few journalists, but fails WP:SIGCOV. The article is seriously padded by editors' WP:OR observations expressing excitement that they have seen the phrase used by a journalist. Once you clean up the WP:OR, there is very little to keep (maybe a redirect to List of Doctor Who home video releases#Blu-ray). Jontesta (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.Jontesta (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Who#Viewership, and merge only the reliable sources into a sentence or two. Svampesky (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svampesky This phrase is discussed at that same article, but at Doctor Who#History. This could still be merged but that section would be a better target. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Doctor Who#History where the topic is already discussed. This is definitely a notable expression and phrase but there isn't really enough to support a whole article on the subject, unfortunately. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Doctor Who#History, per all. I don't think this meets WP:N, and the limited coverage can be summarized somewhere else. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doctor Who#History - Definitely a subject that would make way more sense discussed in the context of the broader topic, per WP:NOPAGE. Rorshacma (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roopkathar Radio

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

Six episode web series cited only to unreliable sources or brief mentions. Cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE to support notability. CNMall41 (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and India. C F A 💬 03:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Klikk#Releases -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reference has no depth at all.

103.127.222.50 (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey's Mechanical House

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

Fails WP:GNG with only one source. Almost entirely a plot summary. Found nothing via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Disney. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: added a few things. Seems to have attracted enough attention to be retained. If other users disagree, a redirect to Mickey Mouse Works is absolutely warranted in my opinion. So very opposed to deletion of this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources added by user Mushy Yank is enough to pass WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese Puzzle (TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 16:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brian_Finch#Career: but I am pretty sure sources exist (I didn't even look; no time). I deproded the page (today; same nomnator) ~~and indicated it could be improved or redirected, if I remember well~~. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC) (I didn't remember well my deproD edit summary; edited; see below-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]
You comment on deprod was "Not uncontroversial", nothing at all about improving or redirecting. Since it was deprodded, I felt that a discussion on notability was better than outright redirecting anyway. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, my bad, I hadn't checked and was trusting my memory, which indeed failed me. If you think an AfD was better, sure. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brian Finch#Career (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. In my searches for sources, I found only passing mentions about the subject. The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources I found in this search on British Newspaper Archive largely were passing mentions. The best sources are these two sources which each provide a few sentences of coverage:
1. "BBC do four new serials for children". The Stage and Television Today. No. 4874. 1974-09-12. p. 15. ProQuest 1040358191. Retrieved 2024-08-08 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "Deborah Makepeace plays a teenager in The Chinese Puzzle, a six-part thriller serial filmed on location on the South Kent coast, beginning in November. The serial, written by Brian Finch, marks the professional debut of 13-year-old Michael Tattersfield. Producer is Bill Sellars, director Alan Bell."
2. Baskin, Ellen (1996). Serials on British Television, 1950–1994. Vermont: Ashgate Publishing. p. 130. ISBN 1-85928-015-3. Retrieved 2024-08-08 – via Google Books.
  The book notes:
  Chinese Puzzle
  13 November 1974, Wednesday, 5:15-5:40pm, BBC1, 6 episodes, thriller, family, British, contemporary BBCtv.
  Pr: Bill Sellars
  Dir: Alan Bell
  Wtr: Brian Finch
  Cast: Martin Frazer — William Abney
  Robert Hardacre — Marcus Barclay
  Wing Commander — William Fox
  Alison Frazer - Deborah Makepeace
  Paul Jameson — Michael Tattersfield
  China — Eric Young
  A flying squadron holds its reunion at a pleasant country inn, but the festivities are interrupted when strange events begin to occur at a nearby unused airfield, and young friends Robert and Paul stumble unwittingly into a kidnapping and blackmail plot.
Cunard (talk) 11:59, 8 August 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 15:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher McDonald (booking agent)

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

Fails WP:BASIC. All significant coverage is in promotional blogs. Mostly trivial mentions. A Google search returns nothing except his LinkedIn and for-hire pages.

The article claims he won an Emmy "as a Talent producer and Talent Booker" at the 2024 Emmys. He did not. The citation (p. 31) attached is for the actor Christopher McDonald's win in 2022, a completely different person. In reality, he was a "talent producer", one of many minor credits, for an Emmy-awarded show.

It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON because apparently he has been cast for Superman (2025), although lots of sites claim that it was the other Christopher McDonald so I can't verify that. C F A 💬 13:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Washington, D.C.. C F A 💬 13:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nommed; no evidence of notability, per WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE (although I'm not even sure the latter applies here). This was accepted at AfC expressly to give the community a chance to offer its views, so this AfD doesn't contradict that acceptance, quite the opposite. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No significance should be attached to my acceptance at AFC. My acceptance rationale is stated on the article's talk page. I intend to maintain a steadfastly neutral stance in this discussion. I do not anticipate that the acceptance will astonish anyone who has read the article talk page comment. You may draw the conclusion that I am surprised that this nomination has taken so long. I will be interested to see the outcome 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AFC Helpdesk discussion is relevant background reading, though can have no bearing on this discussion per se since the article must be judged on its current state and merits. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: To clarify the Superman bit, it is indeed this Christopher McDonald who has been cast in the film (as evident by his social media posts and initial trade reports correcting their false info pointing to the other McDonald), although since he is a newcomer actor, he does not appear notable for his other work as a talent agent and a TV producer in his own right just yet. I believe this article could merit some worth after the Superman film has released and his role is more known, so I think sending this to the draftspace in case other editors wish to flesh it out more there could be beneficial. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it's your prerogative to !vote as you see fit, but just to say that this spent a month in drafts, and was declined no fewer than six times at AfC. It was then accepted largely to let the wider community decide its fate, so sending it back to drafts seems like a retrograde step to me. Also, that Superman film is still a year out, and there's no guarantee that it will establish notability for this actor. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote is in accordance with WP:PRESERVE. I do not believe this is where the nuclear option is required as the whole purpose of the draftspace is for developing article with the potential for mainspace inclusion. There is no harm in letting it move to draftspace and for further work to be done there. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughts. here is the logic I followed-
This guideline applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals. Such a person is notable if:
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or -
4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I thought that based on category 3- applies to him as the producer of 5 season of the major TV Show Kelly Clarkson. There is no difference between what type of producer this category applies to. The show Kelly Clarkson - is in fact "such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". And it is not a "single episode", but 5 seasons. Again, his work as producer is recognized by Emmy nomination and Emmy award with the Kelly Clarkson.

I'd like to hear if you disagree. But there is a category for producers.

This is the main criteria I used, and we discussed with the editors.

J2009j (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPRODUCER (The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work.) does not apply here. He did not create The Kelly Clarkson Show and he did not co-create The Kelly Clarkson show, and even if somehow being a "Talent Producer and Talent Booker" is considered "creating" the work, his role was certainly not "major" as required by the guideline. Also note that: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included (i.e. if they meet the guideline, they likely have received enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to write an article; in this case, he has not). C F A 💬 15:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@J2009j: the way this is indented, it looks like a reply to my comment, but I presume it isn't? Perhaps you could outdent it appropriately, probably to the main level. And please prefix it with an appropriate label per WP:DISCUSSAFD, so that when it comes to closing this discussion it is clear what your intention was. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't. I just do not seem to see a way to leave a separate comment here. J2009j (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. C F A 💬 16:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong here. I understand your reasoning. As someone from the related field, I can confirm he indeed co-created. He is the part of the founding team of the show, along with other people nominated for Emmy with the show. For this reason i specifically added a source with all over 150 or so episodes of Kelly Clarkson show with credits. Do you know what is the role of the " talent producer/booker" for the talk show? To bring all the guests who are coming to the shows, for every episode. It does not qualify to "played a major role"?

He was invited by Kelly Clarkson to do the show with her team. That is discussed in many of the podcasts. I believe WP:NPRODUCER was created for producers, those who are working on protects behind the public eye.

The fact that the person worked on all 5 seasons, and did not bothered to even go talk about it somewhere, so it was hard for me looking for sources also speaks about it. This is how the majority of producers are. There was a 2 hours long discussion about him on youtube. It was the first thing I saw a few years ago about this individual. It was so interesting. I was surprised there is no wikipedia page. Do not remember how it was called, but there is similar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5TrrSks77E J2009j (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sure WP:NPRODUCER does not apply here. There is no coverage on how his role was "major" or how he "co-created" the show. You are just speculating. Regardless, there is not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to write an article, as evidenced by the multiple misleading statements and incorrect citations. C F A 💬 16:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please, see my answer above :For this reason i specifically added a source with all over 150 or so episodes of Kelly Clarkson show with credits. Do you know what is the role of the " talent producer/booker" for the talk show? To bring all the guests who are coming to the shows, for every episode. It does not qualify to "played a major role"? This does not sound like a major role to your personal opinion? I believe it is not objective then.

What are the misleading sources you mean? I added the correct file from the Emmy website with the name of the people from the show. I believe that is what we discussed, and you pointed out to me if was some old file. J2009j (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any action except deletion or retention. DoubleGrazing makes precisely the correct point. I accepted it so that the community could and would make a clear decision about it. Returning it to draft is a pointless exercise after multiple reviews declining it. Let the community decide clearly, please. Trailblazer101 I invite you to come down on one side of the fence or the other. He either passes WP:BIO or he does not. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 15:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have already made my !vote and I see no harm in moving to the draftspace to allow editors a chance to work on it some more. If this figure does become notable, then there would be content history available to go off of. If the draft is not worked on for a period of six months, it would be deleted anyway. I see this as a fitting compromise solution and nothing serious enough to vote for a full deletion. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see why this was accepted at AfC only to be decided on here, it either meets notability or it doesn't. This seems silly. Oaktree b (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should not have been accepted for AfC because it does not pass notability and still has major issues with the citations. Draftspace is where this type of content should be worked on if desirable, not in the mainspace. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "silly". AfC is not, nor should it be, the ultimate arbiter of what gets published; the community is. AfC does not aim for notability beyond reasonable doubt, it aims for better than 50% likelihood, with some inevitable error margin. And given that AfC is in most cases voluntary, there is no point in preventing publication when an author (with no COI or restrictions) is insistent. The rationale for accepting this was perfectly sound, even if the article subsequently ends up here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: These sources are brief mentions or a list of credits from a tv show... I don't see notability. My search brings up nothing extra we could use either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources to be found, beyond quick mentions of his name in relation to various projects. Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I replied here regarding point #3 for producers. It does not require mega coverage. The requirement is to create or play significant role in a project. - For this reason i specifically added a source with all over 150 or so episodes of Kelly Clarkson show with credits. Do you know what is the role of the " talent producer/booker" for the talk show? To bring all the guests who are coming to the shows, for every episode. It does not qualify to "played a major role"? This does not sound like a major role to your personal opinion? I believe it is not objective then.

Do you know that none of the producer of the major American late shows have page on wikipedia because they do not care about publicity? Shows like Steven Colbert and others upon my discovery and motivation to cover this category of people. J2009j (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J2009j: please don't WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. You can make your point, once, but don't need to make it in response to every !vote. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Is there a way to somehow highlight this point at the begging so people can read it? I believe it is an important point. I have bios of at least 3 producers from main American talk shows never even covered by Wikipedia. This category 3# refers to specifically this type of people. I believe it was made with this purpose. If some editors do not know the roles at the talk shows- it is important to know how there are producers for the context and talent building the show, which are major roles, in addition to the host. Host like Kelly Clarkson or Steven Colbert are the only "big" public people there. For example, you on Wikipedia, keep a category for cinematographers who made a significant piece of art, or painters. J2009j (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A talent producer and booking agent are different from the executive producer or television producer roles, which are nore notable and important than arranging guests to appear on a talk show. And only highlighting 150 episodes on a single show does not mean the individual is notable for that work alone.Most talent agents do not receive a ton of coverage unless they are closer to the top, such as Bryan Lourd, Ari Emanuel, and Phil Gersh, to name a few. While his works and clients may be notable, there has not been sufficient evidence to prove McDonald himself is notable beyond his works alone. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if McDonald met WP:NPRODUCER, that is just guidance (People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards.). It is not the same as "presumed" or "inherited" notability. There still needs to be enough coverage to write and accurately source the article, which there clearly isn't. C F A 💬 19:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may be an extremely competent employee who plays a valuable internal role in making shows run smoothly, but the argument for notability is an unbelievable stretch here. Even assuming that he falls under one of the the genre-specific notability categories in which notability is likely -- and I don't subscribe to that -- the actual significant coverage of this producer is razor-thin. Draftifying it at this point would also just postpone the inevitable and soak up more editor time. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to disagree. I see that there is this additional criterion. He, as the talent producer of 'The Kelly Clarkson Show,' was nominated for an Emmy and received an Emmy. His name is listed on the website for the award and nomination. It does not matter whether you like it or not, but the fact is that he has it. The names of all employees of the show are not submitted for an Emmy, but only those who play a significant role.
Any biography
- WP:ANYBIO
1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times; or
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field; or
3. The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography).
J2009j (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about whether I like or not. He's not an Emmy award nominee. He's someone who worked on the show that was nominated for an Emmy, not the awardee. This has been told to you repeatedly, in multiple places, and you haven't provided a single reliable source that suggests otherwise. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the fact that the reliable source you provide is your simple assertion that we should trust you because you're in the industry, makes it clear that your lack of providing an actually reliable source and my inability to alternatively find a reliable source saying such, is not a coincidence. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CoffeeCrumbs reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a clear absence of substantial coverage of Christopher McDonald, and he does not meet the notability criteria for producers. Ynsfial (talk) 01:24, 9 August 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.

Inter-Services Public Relations media productions

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Mention insignificant work. WP:NOT DIRECTORY — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Film, Television, Video games, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it's just raw list and not much explanations about the production company. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator and previous voter. The article has no encyclopedic context or explanatory value for the interested reader. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This is a part of ISPR's main page. Just like many other pages have separate list pages. For example, Tom Hanks has a separate list page called List of Tom Hanks performances and credits. Another huge list is List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar. Every production house has a separate list for their work like List of Paramount Pictures films (2010–2019). So, strongly KEEP.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ameen Akbar. Muneebll (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Muneebll, OK but Ameen presented an argument that wasn't based on policy. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. NOTDIR and fails NLIST. No notability for a standalone list. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Didi Zindabad

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

Fails WP:GNG. With the exception of one source, everything falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Churnalism and press releases as well as no-bylined articles. CNMall41 (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Bangladesh, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zee_Bangla#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is not even a newspaper name under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. And the page is well notable. So I think it needs to be kept.

103.127.222.50 (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - By checking the reference, you will understand that the coverages are very significant. Besides, no reference of Newspaper under WP:NEWSORGINDIA has been used here. Nilpriyo (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No GNG whatsoever. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy's Place (2024 TV series)

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

WP:TOOSOON; short article Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WP:TOOSOON Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 03:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets GNG and is going to be released in a month. No point in draftifying it. People are more likely to expand it in mainspace and readers may be looking for an article close to the release date. C F A 💬 02:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It has received 1500 page views in the 7 days since creation. C F A 💬 02:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify the only independent sigcov is from today.com and I'm skeptical about the reliability of that source. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one from USA Today, Deadline, Screen Rant, Pop Culture, Billboard, The Oklahoman, Entertainment Weekly, The Hollywood Reporter, and there's a lot more. There is more than enough coverage to write a good C-class article. Draftifying is pointless because people are much more likely to expand the article when it is in mainspace. C F A 💬 14:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Watson

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

Similiar reason to nominate as this nomination - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Metcalfe (2nd nomination)

Sources are dubious at best - the Telegraph and Auto Trader source is about a TV show in some minor-league TV station that doesn't warrant notability. His recent presenting job in Carwow only warrant notability on its own page, not on this. Hobbyist sources such as autoevolution are dubious at best. Quality of that page is dubious at best. A check per WP:BEFORE do not show much any reliable sources at all. Also fails WP:JOURNALIST.

WP:ATD will be merge to carwow SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Transportation, and United Kingdom. C F A 💬 03:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources in the article look like announcements and others the writings of the subject. Search returns nothing tangible Ednabrenze (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Little Pony villains

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

WP:OR without independent sources, or any indication of notability. There is already a list of List of My Little Pony characters with its own errors and problems. Wikipedia doesn't allow editors to arbitrarily make repeated articles about the same topic unless there is WP:SIGCOV to justify it. Jontesta (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The listed characters from the older series appear to be all one-shot villains that appeared for a single movie/storyline, that have no notability or coverage in reliable sources, and are covered in the main articles for the movies/TV specials they appeared in where applicable. The reoccurring villains from the newer series are already covered on the appropriate character lists and articles for their respective series. This current list is completely unsourced, and I am not finding any sources that would indicate that the topic of villains from throughout the multiple iterations of the MLP franchise are notable as its own group or set. Rorshacma (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Toys. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of My Little Pony characters. This article is a great labor of love but I really don't see anything indicating any independent notability for it as its own list. jp×g 🗯️ 07:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:SPLITLIST might apply. Redirect and merge seems warranted anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of My Little Pony characters. One list of characters per show is enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:50, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Wcquidditch. WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Also, similiar to the case of List of Doctor Who villains despite this being of a better quality. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of My Little Pony characters, per WP:CONSENSUS. It makes sense to WP:AVOIDSPLIT or even delete, but redirect would preserve the history, and allow selective merging through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge: to List of My Little Pony characters. I don't think a split list is warranted. The main list article needs clean up as well which would help keep the article size down. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 23:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Kumar (producer)

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 06:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Bihar, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is a lot of news story talking about the guy on Google News Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we don't go by Google hits but by reliable secondary sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time War (Doctor Who)

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

Wikipedia is not the TARDIS data core. This article is a nonsense. It is written as though describing a real conflict. Most, if not all, of the references are primary sources/the actual episodes of the show where this war is mentioned, including the BBC (the show's production company), Big Finish Productions (the production company for the audio adaptation), BBC Books (the publisher for book adaptations), and Doctor Who fan sites. From my research, all sources related to this fictional-war originate either those primary sources, or from standard run-of-the-mill coverage to promote an episode, with only passing mention of the fictional-war, and no analysis of it. ~~Delete!~~ Per Pokelego999's comment, I'm amending to Merge with Doctor Who (mainly the non-primary-sourced material). Svampesky (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC), amended 02:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Svampesky (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage is a bit buried in the depths of promo material, but a brief search yielded some results. Reviews of The Day of the Doctor (The 50th Anniversary special which got a lot more in-depth coverage than most episodes) tend to yield bits (Such as this AV Club source). I found a Gizmodo source discussing the War in its entirety, though its coverage is smattered throughout the article. This book has a whole chapter on the War, while this book seems to discuss it in association with The Doctor's character a fair bit. A brief glance at this book and this book yields promise, as do a few hits for books in regards to Psychology about the Doctor in association with the War, but admittedly these I can't fully access enough to judge. Given the Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, I'd warrant there's probably more discussing its role within the context of the show, but I only did a brief search, so I'd be happy for other editors to also do searches to see what else I didn't see. Either way, the Time War definitely seems to have coverage, if scattered, that shows its notability, though as the nom said the article definitely needs a rewrite at some point in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. I've amended my nomination to merge. [T]he Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, yes; but outside of the Doctor Who fictional-universe, I still don't think it passes any of the points of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV for it to have a stand-alone article. Svampesky (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that's a non sequitur, right? Nothing is notable inside or outside of any fictional universe; they're either notable, or they are not. We don't have to have documentation of time war reenactors in order to keep the article... we just need independent reliable sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. In point of fact, "real world" manifestations such as toys are often ignored entirely as non-independent (the same people are making money off of them...) when assessing the notability of fictional topics that CAN be so manifested. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. One of the books you cited The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who (ISBN: 9781849909389) is published by BBC Books, which is a subsidiary of the production company of the show. Svampesky (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I'm unaware of the circumstances with the BBC (Since its publishing is largely unrelated to the original show) so I'm not sure if it has a use case or not. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although commentary is needed in the article, that can be done with the sources suggested above, even if discounting the BBC book, and therefore notability is established. Daranios (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either History of the Time Lords#The Time War (sketchy notability itself) or Time Lord (where it is mentioned throughout). I am having difficulty imagining how this article would even look if written with an encyclopedic out-of universe approach (MOS:REALWORLD): Plot doesn't have production design or casting. In short: I believe this topic is unfixable as a standalone article, even with the sources provided above. I wouldn't mind selective merging. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Time War was a mostly off-screen event, so casting information is irrelevant. Either way, I'd propose an organization of:

-Developmental information (I know it exists as I've seen bits of it floating around before and I'm aware of a few sources I'd need to double check, but I'd need to do a more thorough search than what I've done above)

-Basic summary of the event, which could probably condense the information in the article to a readable state.

-Reception and Analysis of the War's role in the show's narrative.

I'm confused what you mean by the article being entirely unfixable. It needs a massive rewrite, but it's not undoable with more in-depth rewrites and research. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My nomination still stands as 'Merge with Doctor Who', but I am willing to collaborate on a Draft: of this article if the outcome of this AfD is 'Draftify' and explore additional secondary sources with other editors who are interested in contributing. Please, drop a message on my talk page to notify me if this happens. Svampesky (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The Time War is literally synonymous with the plot of Doctor Who. It is what the entire series is about. We already have Doctor Who, History of Doctor Who, History of the Time Lords, Time Lord, and Whoniverse to deal with this information. Several of those also have major gaps in sourcing. Do we really need multiple poorly written articles about the same thing? Please let's start with one article with independent reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true; the Time War is a relatively small part of the overall story of Doctor Who. Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rule out Doctor Who and History of Doctor Who, as those are primarily out of universe production information. In the case of the Time War, analysis of its role wouldn't be fitting to place in an article like one of those. Whoniverse additionally is more focused on the actual umbrella brand these days. I'm partial to one of the Time Lord articles should it come down to that, but I'd have to take a closer look to see which is better (I'd honestly AfD History of the Time Lords as well- that article is in a very bad state and can easily be condensed to the original Time Lord article) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete checking through the article shows there is nothing there to assert WP:SIGCOV. Sources are nothing but mainly of BBC and affliated sources, per WP:PRIMARY. It maybe notable to the Who fanbase but is it notable for Wikipedia. Articles like this needs to be put out of its misery, fans should be reminded that Wikipedia is not Fandom. WP:ATD will be a redirect SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on the sources listed above? Given your rationale is mostly focused on the current state, I'm curious about the above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Books is WP:PRIMARY. gizmodo is fine, that's one in. As with The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who, I don't know how much is it about the subject to save it from deletion. As with Religion and Doctor Who, I feel there is a small amount is given to the subject. I feel there is not enough to save itself from a merger, which I think is the best outcome. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can't do further research on the subject later, given my search was rather light. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for the time being; WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article has been tagged as needing attention, so a good-faith attempt to fix the article should be the first step. If, after removing everything that doesn't meet the required standards, the article still doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV, then we can return to the question of deleting or merging it. I don't think we can discuss merging now as the article is far too long for a simple merge. So I come back, again, to - fix the article first. (ETA: forgot to say, WP:TARDIS is an essay, not a guideline; for a convincing deletion argument, I would like to see actual WP guidelines referenced as well, to clearly demonstrate the official standards not met).

JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JustAnotherCompanion: The notices have been on the page for over two years. As I said above, my nomination remains; but I'm willing to collaborate with editors if this AfD closes as draftify and we restart it from scratch in the Draft: space and work with secondary sources. Svampesky (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found some more sources including this one. This one has some scattered bits on how it affected the Doctor's psychology, this one has some brief bits on its production history, this seems to be promising but I can't scan it entirely. The main problem I'm having with my search is that there are a lot of hits but I can't gauge coverage due to the amount of paywalls blocking me (Especially with Scholar, where there a lot of promising hits on things like war and psychology). It seems highly promising nonetheless given what I can preview though, but if anyone can gauge any of the Scholar sources I'd greatly appreciate it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an AfD outcome per the above additional sourcing. No objection to further merging as a consensus discussion (but not forced by AfD) outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a small consensus to Keep this article but even supporters of this position agree that the article needs an overhaul. But I doubt it can be rewritten during the period of this AFD though. Please review sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Time Lord, per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PRESERVE. The sources heavily cover this as part of their coverage of the Time Lords, and I don't see separate WP:SIGCOV for different articles covering basically the same thing.
Most !votes consent to a merge/redirect. SpacedFarmer and the AFD nominator are delete !votes who have suggested a redirect. Pokelego999 and JClemens are keep !votes who are considering merge targets. JustAnotherCompanion would accept a potential merge, but they have concerns about doing it too quickly or clumsily. The easiest way to reach a consensus is to close this as a merge, and allow the tag to sit there as long as needed to import anything that isn't already covered at Time Lord. The amount of content to WP:PRESERVE can be determined through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above, Merge/Redirect to Time Lord. MohReddy (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GoldMyne TV

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

Non notable online TV that received only passing mentions in all sources referenced. The claim of winning award does not improve its notably because the award categories are clustered with other supposed winners. Other available sources not cited in the article only give passing mentions in reference to interviews conducted by the subject. But those do not count for notability. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another of my favorite constant topics which come up here often; Yet Another Non-Notable Nigerian YouTube Music Show®️. Nate • (chatter) 17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination. Most of the sources were nothing to write home about. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Tv has been awarded 3 times by a notable award ceremony Legendarycharles (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: By virtue of the awards won. This is equal to awards won by some entertainment brands in the UK and US. And winning it three times definitely means NCREATIVE or GNG can be satisfied. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This fully sourced award section is an evidence of notability. Best, Reading Beans 09:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not understand what the nominated meant by The claim of winning award does not improve its notably because the award categories are clustered with other supposed winners. because winning awards for three years is an evidence of notability. Best, Reading Beans 09:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We may be nearing a consensus that these awards establish notability, but it would be useful if a few more voices could weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per keep !votes. Seem to narrowly pass GNG. Has also been established platform for local entertainment news. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I also believe it has passes GNG based on the awards- particularly the multiple wins as mentioned above. Editing84 (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

Television proposed deletions