Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
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 to Television. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

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


Purge page cache watch
Scan for TV related AfDs

This will only scan about 1,500 categories. Go here to tweak which ones are scanned.

Related deletion sorting


Television

[edit]

Roopkathar Radio

[edit]
Roopkathar Radio (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)

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]

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

Mickey's Mechanical House

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

Fails WP:GNG with only one source. Almost entirely a plot summary. Found nothing via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 22:17, 6 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz Read! Talk! 07:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Fifth Commandment (TV series)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Note that says it can be expanded by German article isn't relevant as there are no useful citations in that version that supports notability. The other 2 languages are similar, no citations that can support notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian page has FOUR references that can clearly support notability! (+1 in a blog), including a full in-depth article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine!!! I deproDed the page (today) and indicated it was improvable....A redirect should have been considered anyway. Always should (before a PROD, before an AfD) if one has no time or will to check the sources. A See also on the page offered an obvious target. And I have only checked the other Wikipedias...... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:28, 6 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.

The Chinese Puzzle (TV series)

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

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

Rabindranath Tagore filmography

[edit]
Rabindranath Tagore filmography (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 page was created by a now-blocked sock puppet. The content within the page appears to be entirely made up; a lot of the entries listed are actually the works of Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay (could be a case of WP:HOAX). Not to mention that we already have the article Adaptations of works of Rabindranath Tagore in film and television, which would only make this page a redundant duplicate. Keivan.fTalk 05:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher McDonald (booking agent)

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

Fails WP: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]


  • 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 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk 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. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk 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]
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. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk 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]
  • 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]

Inter-Services Public Relations media productions

[edit]
Inter-Services Public Relations media productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Diamond Didi Zindabad

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

Fails WP: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]

Happy's Place (2024 TV series)

[edit]
Happy's Place (2024 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON; short article 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]

NASCAR Nation

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
NASCAR Nation (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 doesn't appear to meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 22:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Time Lords

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

A split off of Time Lord, which is filled with OR, Uncited Statements, and more. There is no indication this subject is notable, being sourced to all primary sources and with no sources actively showing the history of this species is separately notable from the Time Lord subject (Which, from a search, definitely is notable) and a size split is not necessary since much of this information is easily summarized (Or, in fact, already summarized) at the main article. I see no reason for this article's existence, and is one of the few cases where I'd argue for an outright deletion on this subject, since it just isn't a necessary article in any sense of the word. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gutrecht

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

fails general notability guideline. ltbdl (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Watson

[edit]
Mat Watson (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)

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]

List of My Little Pony villains

[edit]
List of My Little Pony villains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP: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]

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]

Pradeep Kumar (producer)

[edit]
Pradeep Kumar (producer) (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 meet WP:GNG and WP:NPERSON. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 06:44, 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]

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. The consensus is that WP:NACTOR is not met at this point in the subject's career. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudeepa Singh

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 06:48, 31 July 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.

Time War (Doctor Who)

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

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]

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]

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]

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 redirect‎ to Request (broadcasting). Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All Request

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

I don't think this is a thing and I don't understand how the second paragraph relates to the topic. Fuddle (talk) 01:34, 31 July 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.
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 redirect‎ to List of Doctor Who supporting characters. There seems to be a rough consensus against keeping the article as a standalone page, and no convincing argument against redirecting it to a relevant page. A discussion about what content, if any, to merge into the target is best left for the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 17:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who villains

[edit]
List of Doctor Who villains (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)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Purposeless list of often one-story characters from Doctor Who, with next to no attempt at secondary sourcing or justification of the notability of the group. U-Mos (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per nom. WP:BEFORE can't WP:VERIFY most of the contents here. There are some sources for individual notable characters, but these are already covered better at their character articles. Sometimes a single character list is fine for navigation and context (which is the case for List of Doctor Who characters), per WP:ATD. But the premise for this list is flawed, and contains far too much unverifiable content for an additional list. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: I expect more or less everything here can be WP:VERIFYed by primary sources, but on what basis did come to the conclusion that most of the contents cannot be verified by secondary sources? Daranios (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reliable definition of a villain without reliable secondary sources. Just to reiterate, this overlaps heavily with list of Doctor Who characters and this is an WP:AVOIDSPLIT situation. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: There's no reliable definition of a villain without reliable secondary sources. So what do you think about the many secondary sources listed below which do apply the term villain, in general and to most if not all of the examples in our list here as it currently stands? And the content already referenced in the list now?
I am not specifically opposed to the WP:AVOIDSPLIT argument, but then why remain with the Delete !vote? Daranios (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always in favor of consensus building, and if things start to lean towards merging, I am usually in favor. I am not currently convinced by questionable/situational sources (e.g.: valnet) and I see a lot of these characters are already covered in more standard character lists. I wouldn't oppose a merge and I appreciate editors such as yourself who can offer a compromise a solution. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: Ok, in this case I would like to point out that there are also many secondary sources listed below which are not by Valnet and which to my knowledge are reliable, mostly books. The same is the case for all the referenced material currently in the article - no Valnet sources there. Daranios (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge: I do see the issues with list, but as the topic clearly seems notable based on the secondary sources a WP:BEFORE search brings up, those issues all can be solved through normal editing are therefore not grounds for deletion: As for the purpose, this list can gather links to the Doctor Who villains notable in their own right for navigation, and collect a balanced amount of relevant information on characters who are not notable in their own right, in accordance with WP:CSC and the result of the earlier discussions (although these are quite old). Lacking references can be added from the existing secondary sources (and probably trimming some entries). As for justification and Wikipedia is not a directory, inclusion criteria can and should be phrased. And while tags are admittedly often not very effective, one month is a bit short for see if someone else would like to tackle the problem before bringing things to a deletion discussion. And AfD is not cleanup. And as always, if you see an issue, always consider to Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. All that said, I have no objection against a merge to List of Doctor Who characters, if a majority thinks this is the better way of presenting things for editorial reasons. A renaming away from List of Doctor Who supporting characters might then be in order, though. Daranios (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll confess I didn't look at List of Doctor Who supporting characters before nominating - one thing at a time - but now I have, that too is hard to justify. What doesn't duplicate List of Doctor Who cast members and/or Companion (Doctor Who) is in-universe trivia. We can of course talk about adding in secondary material, but when there's nothing worth keeping at the present moment aren't we in WP:STARTOVER territory? And why is it worth preserving this structure when an alternative exists concurrently, and is far better maintained? U-Mos (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I was not at this point aware of List of Doctor Who cast members. I do not much care under what heading the information is presented, and if List of Doctor Who cast members and List of Doctor Who supporting characters should be merged, but the current format of List of Doctor Who cast members does not allow for adding additional information/commentary on characters without major overhaul. List of Doctor Who supporting characters does. With regard to Pokelego999's opinion, I do believe that the concept of "Villains" in Doctor Who is notable based on sources like The Humanism of Doctor Who. But if they should be presented separately or not is an editorial decision. I do not think that this is a case of WP:TNT, because while we are currently lacking secondary sources, I believe that most entries in the list will have such secondary sources. I have arbitrarily chosen to look for Axos and Helen A, I have right away found sources for both. In general I have made the experience that such a collected list, in a bad shape as it is, is a good starting point if one seriously wants to improve things. So I believe preserving it in one form or another is best. If someone performed a search for secondary sources on any specific character and came up empty, then that one can be removed. Daranios (talk) 10:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first is a review, the second is from an unreliable source, and the third mentions Helen A once. Additionally, notability must be established with the group being a notable group of subjects, not by individual members having small amounts of coverage. The book source you've linked above is honestly pretty solid, but admittedly my main concern is with the overlap with the main characters list even if other sources are found. List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens has a lot of entries, but that's mostly alright because the list itself doesn't really have much viable overlap. The villains list is a majority of one offs who tend to fall into a supporting character role, or fall into the aliens list itself. There's some notable entities in there in terms of the series, but most of these could probably be included in the supporting characters list, with a subsection related to villain reception inside the article. The list obviously needs some work before that can happen, but it's 100% a feasible outcome with some editing that I'm fine with doing myself. I just don't see as visible a need for separation here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a review: I don't see a problem with that, as there is coverage of the character. Per WP:NOTPAPER it is also not a problem if things were covered at two place each with their respective different contexts, i.e. in the episode article if that exists, and in this overview list of villains or characters. the third mentions Helen A once: Not only sentences where the name of the character appears are relevant. There is more commentary on references to Margaret Thatcher in Doctor Who more generally, which refer back to Helen A being such a reference. But even aside from that, the character being a commentary on real-world politics surely is fitting for an encyclopedic entry. And that that is in one sentence does not make it irrelevant, as here we are not talking about Helen A getting a stand-alone article, but that it is content exactly fitting for such a list with regard to WP:CSC. the second is from an unreliable source: Right, sorry, I did not realize that at that time. But the point is that it was easy to find coverage, and that these three results are by no means the results of an exhaustive WP:BEFORE search. So I currently see the viewpoint that most entries here are not covered by secondary sources as unfounded, one just has to invest the time to properly search for the entries individually. notability must be established with the group That is the case when consulting secondary sources such as the one I mentioned. I wonder how U-Mos came to a different conclusion.
So I still think keeping this list would be fine, but I also understand and am fine with a merge to a more general character list, seeing that this would solve the point raised by Svampesky of the somewhat fuzzy definition of villain. (Even though secondary source do use that term a lot!)
Now that I have found and restored some sourced content formerly in the article and added some noe content to show that it exists, would you, Pokelego999, and anyone be willing to support a merge of such material as WP:AtD rather than pure delete/redirect?
I would also be happy to further add such materials based on secondary sources if anyone who has voiced concerns with the current state of the article would like to team up. Daranios (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of lists is based on the group, and that's my concern. Sources and secondary material can be added to episode articles and elsewhere as appropriate; what I'm not seeing is significant secondary material covering Doctor Who villains as a topic in its own right. I have at no point stated a belief that entries in this list are not the subjects of secondary coverage. U-Mos (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@U-Mos: Well, there is the already mentioned The Humanism of Doctor Who, and other early hits are The Best ‘Doctor Who’ Villains, Ranked and A World of Demons, a whole book dedicated to the villains of Doctor Who. More generally, the deletion process requires a WP:BEFORE search from the nominator, and to "demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth". Now the mandatory searches in Google, Google News and Google Books, as well as the optional one in Daranios (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding your tone unconstructive so will not be engaging with this discussion any further. I'm glad that this proposal has spurred some work on improving the WikiProject, whatever its outcome may be. U-Mos (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@U-Mos: Sorry, I did not realize that. Please let me rephrase. You've mentioned you were concerned about the notability of the characters as a group, as required by WP:LISTN. What do you think about the coverage in The Humanism of Doctor Who, the web article The Best ‘Doctor Who’ Villains, Ranked and A World of Demons, a whole book dedicated to the villains of Doctor Who. I believe these contain enough to fullfill that requirement. What do you think of these? I believe there are even more secondary sources about that. In case you think these three are a start but not enough, I could look again. Thanks for letting me know. Daranios (talk) 18:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The third source you listed seems solid, but the Mary Sue source is pretty weak. Not only does it include characters not included in the current list (Alien species such as the Daleks and Weeping Angels) but it does not give commentary as a group, only individual members in the list. It honestly compounds the issues with list overlap mentioned above, as this list overlaps with several different lists. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: So where does that leave us? Are you happy with the two other sources, discounting the Mary Sue article? Would it change something if someone dug up more secondary sources on the villains as a group? Daranios (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do feel if you can prove notability as a group, you've got a strong argument for keeping the article. I still believe it's better off merged, but I definitely believe that if you can dig up sources you can probably sway the argument towards keep. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yeah, and there is also this web news article which not so much discusses the villains as a group, but is a secondary source which just sees fit to collect all of them (as of the date of publication). This should also allow to WP:VERIFY almost all currently uncited information here, including the status of the entries as "villains", without recourse to primary sources or original research. Daranios (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per nom, whatever works best. I've meaning to take action on this list for some time, and was planning to start a merge discussion once I finished my work at List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. Most of the characters in here are one-offs easily redirectable to their target article, as I don't believe the concept of "Villains" is really independently notable from the main character list. The main character list is, for all intents and purposes, complete shit, and was on my to-do list for a rewrite. I do plan to work on the list eventually and improve it, but I believe the recurring villains can be safely merged to the main list while one offs can be redirected to their parent article. I'd be happy to handle individual character redirects should this article be merged, redirected, or what have you. Should the supporting characters list be decided as the target, I'd be fine with shifting my priorities to rewriting the character list to be actually useful if editors feel that would more greatly beneficial than doing the aliens list, as I already have a draft started in my userspace for a rewrite, because per nom, that list is very much in Wikipedia:STARTOVER territory. In any case, I see no reason this article should exist, and if sources spring up to determine separate notability, the Villains list would require a complete rewrite akin to the aliens list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svampesky: You are referring to WP:NOTTARDIS. So what about the content where secondary sources can be found, as that essay asks us to do, and the content where they already have been found and added? Daranios (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Svampesky: I'd be happy to work together and improve this in some form (merge?) or another, if it were not summarily deleted. Daranios (talk) 05:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, largely unsourced and so subject to WP:NPOV issues - especially with entries like the Bogeyman, where as well as being listed as a villain there's a note saying it's no longer a villain by the end of the episode. Doctor Who is not Batman, and doesn't have or need a 'rogues gallery' in the same sense. The key villains (Daleks, Cybermen, etc) already have their own articles and are more than adequately covered. As others have noted, this is not the only list of Doctor Who characters, so it seems there's a lot of unnecessary duplication and segregation that will need to be looked at.
JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens has a very strong keep rationale (Meets LISTN and was proven notable in its last AfD). Supporting Characters is likely notable for the same reasons, but needs to be entirely reworked. Spin-off companions can probably be merged back to the main article (Companion (Doctor Who)) while Robots is iffy but I have seen significant coverage for in several books. Could potentially be merged with the aliens article but it'd depend on how much coverage there is tbh. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because it can be considered a WP:SPLITLIST from List of Doctor Who characters; and/or because the topic as a set has been discussed (https://www.space.com/doctor-who-villains-ranked-worst-to-best ; https://www.cbr.com/doctor-who-villains-ranked/, https://collider.com/doctor-who-modern-villains-best-ranked/ https://www.thegamer.com/doctor-who-best-villains-list/ https://screenrant.com/doctor-who-villains-monsters-most-appearances/ https://movieweb.com/doctor-who-best-villains-from-the-modern-era-ranked/ https://movieweb.com/doctor-who-underrated-villains-more-respect/ https://screenrant.com/doctor-who-classic-villains-return-after-toymaker/ https://www.scifiscience.co.uk/drwho/drwho_badguys.html and so on, ....) which is the requirement for lists (WP:NLIST. A redirect and merge is anyway warranted imv, so very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These lists don't really contain discussion as a group, though. The list needs a valid split rationale and the above sources aren't really doing it since they don't discuss the subjects as a group. These sources mention them being in a group, but only discusses them as individuals, not as a group. Additionally, many of them are Valnet, which don't contribute to notability. For an example of sources valuable for building Reception and a split reason, consider the book sources Daranios found above, which contain hefty discussion of the subject as a group.
    Unrelated, but what does imv mean? I haven't seen that abbreviation before. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "in my view". -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And yes, when you make a list of the 10 best villains or the most underrated ones, and so on, your approach of the set is collective. It is not possible to have an even collective appraisal of a list without considering the items it consists of. A list is not a mass of unquantifiable mud. As for split rationale, WP:SPLITLIST is very clear: size and navigation matter because this is an online encyclopaedia. I had seen the books mentioned above but thanks for mentioning them again as yet another reason for keeping this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:58, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of these lists don't contribute to notability, and additionally, those that do don't actually say anything about the concept of a villain in Doctor Who. They simply list several, which focuses more on them individually. Let's go through the ones you posted:
    Ignoring CBR and Screen Rant, I'm going to assume the other sources here are reliable for the sake of discussion, though I lack familiarity with Space.com and MovieWeb.
    -TheGamer gives a brief two paragraphs of plot summary at the start before going into individual coverage of the top ten. Another thing to note is that of this top ten, only three of these do not overlap with List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens (The Toymaker, The Master, The Family of Blood)
    -Space.com briefly summarizes the show for the first few paragraphs, and merely touches on the antagonists as existing in the latter two. Again, only three don't overlap with the aliens list (The Master, Torchwood, and the Gas Mask People.)
    -The two MovieWeb sources have the same issues as the two above. The first again only has three without overlap (The Master, the Family of Blood, The Beast) and while the second does a little bit better, it still is only covering these entities individually, and many of the individual entities are one off members of specific species that can be, if not already covered, at the creatures list.
    -I frankly have no clue what "Sci-Fi Science" is but this site is not a significant coverage source. This is just a list of every vaguely antagonistic figure with a brief bit of plot summary explaining who they are. Many of these are iffy in terms of their "villainy" as well (Such as Aggedor, a character who is literally just a wild animal who has helped the main protagonist on several occasions in the past).
    -Collider's small bit, I'll give them credit for, is potentially usable, unlike the others, but it's still just the usual "two paragraph lead-in" and I wouldn't count it as significant for the whole group. Again, there are only four entries without overlap (The Empty Child, Maestro, The Master, the Toymaker).
    Each of these lists has significant overlap with the aliens list (Since many of these antagonists are aliens) and many of them even outright discuss aliens in terms of the antagonist role (Such as TheGamer and Space.com). The few entities that aren't covered on the aliens list can easily be ported over to the supporting characters list, and if there is significant coverage of some of the one offs that got a lot of attention (Like the Gas Mask People or Family of Blood) they can be covered there too. My problem, again, is that not only is actual coverage of the group weak, but the actual subject matter is far more logical merged than anything else because it overlaps with the other lists in significant contexts. Unless you can find actual significant coverage about the subject of villains in Doctor Who, then all this does is prove further how heavy the overlap is with the other two lists. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pokelego999: Unless you can find actual significant coverage about the subject of villains in Doctor Who We did discuss further sources further up, though, didn't we? but the actual subject matter is far more logical merged than anything else But then why remain with the "Delete" !vote? Daranios (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only two sources that were considerably, guaranteed notable, which isn't enough for a whole article. As for my vote, I personally feel it's better off deleted with the redirection of content handled editorially, as trying to decide new targets and merged content here would clutter discussion. (Additionally, the current lists' merged content for aliens is already there while the supporting characters list itself needs an overhaul before content can be improved, which I have volunteered to undertake should it be deemed for the best) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Irrespective of possible notability as a topic, this content fails WP:NOTPLOT, WP:V. An encyclopedic treatment of the topic would present the villains in a real-world context (e.g. are there any Soviet analogs, as the Klingons were in Star Trek?), based on reliable sources. Sandstein 11:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: So what about the currently present referenced content on fan reception, production, and "literary" commentary, brief as it might be? Daranios (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What little encyclopedic prose content there is would fit better into the existing articles about the respective characters or episodes. Otherwise, deleting all the superfluous or unsourced entries, we'd be left with a list of like four entries. Sandstein 16:53, 6 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.

Chickenpox (South Park)

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

Only two sources, which do not appear to qualify as SIGCOV. There does not seem to be a justification based on notability as on why this episode should have a separate article (i.e. it could also be redirected to South Park (season 2). Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As said above, it may be WP:RS but two sources does not make it a WP:SIGCOV

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please remember to sign any comments you make in an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two sources can be sigcov, FWIW. The AV club piece is quite extensive and the other two sources are less so but are fine. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:54, 2 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 redirect‎ to Viacom18#Owned channels. Liz Read! Talk! 02:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colors Gujarati

[edit]
Colors Gujarati (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)

Lot's of churnalism and unreliable sources, including a lot of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Previously tagged but still cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE. If anything, recommending a redirect to Viacom18 as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two links are just regurgitation of announcements that the channel is going to launch. Anyone can put out a press release that gets picked up by the media and re-run in different news outlets. This is not something that would count towards notability. I also do not put much stock in TOI, especially since it looks like it will not be considered towards notability based on current WP:RSN discussion (to be determined of course). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus and two different redirect target articles suggested,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 31 July 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.
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 merge‎ to List of Buffyverse novels. If no effort to merge takes place within a month, any editor is welcome to blank and redirect to the target. Owen× ☎ 20:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Buffyverse guidebooks

[edit]
List of Buffyverse guidebooks (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 guidebooks themselves are not notable by any GNG measure. Buffyverse and buffy itself, yes, but not these guidebooks. Iljhgtn (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you oppose a merger, please specify why.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:18, 30 July 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.

GoldMyne TV

[edit]
GoldMyne 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)

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]

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]

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

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]

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 redirect‎ to List of Kannada-language television channels#News. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV9 Kannada

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
TV9 Kannada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article. Literary found nothing that can help to support WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Don't Delete I think it not to be deleted. Randomiaedit (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)User Blocked[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:20, 31 July 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.
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 redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by Sony Entertainment Television#Current broadcasts. Despite the socking shenanigans, it looks like nobody here wants to keep this and there is no objection to the redirect as an ATD. Sandstein 16:58, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pukaar – Dil Se Dil Tak

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

I am neutral in this filing but feel a consensus is needed here than deleting the page and redirecting, given that this is an ongoing tv show which satisfies WP:TV. Also I don't find any issues with the current sources of this article, only thing is that more WP:RS sources should be added. Editingmylove (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is opposition to Deletion although editors have not offered bolded Keep votes as they should. To the nominator, don't bring an article to AFD unless you are seeking a Deletion. Because that is often the outcome here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, hello; you mean they have not offered bolded Keep, perhaps? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct, I have changed my relisting statement. Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:33, 29 July 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.

Shabana Shajahan Aryan

[edit]
Shabana Shajahan Aryan (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)

Previously deleted and salted as Shabana Shajahan/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Shajahan * Pppery * it has begun... 00:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the previous AFD was closed as Delete and it seems like many sources concern her personal life, not her career.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify. Actress had been in 2 Tamil language TV shows where she played lead roles but the sources on the page are focused on her personal marital life than her career. Source 1 is about her dress outfits. Source 2 is on her wedding anniversary. Source 3 is on her marriage trouble. Source 4 is on her childhood picture. Source 5 is passing mention on likes dislikes. Source 6 is on show going off-air. Source 7, 8 and 9 are on her marriage troubles. There is not a single source with indepth coverage on her career. I did not find any reliable secondary independent source that has indepth coverage on her career as an actress and the reason could be that her career is not yet worthy of notice to deserve attention or to be recorded but voting to draftify if anyone can find sources on her career and improve the page. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Could editors arguing to Keep offer a response to this source review? How would you feel about draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and it also says and is known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. RangersRus (talk) 15:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"also says"? Please. It is written in my note. There's no need to repeat and repeat it, bold or not, as if I was trying to ignore it. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes it more clear to state what is exactly said that isn't clear or contradicts from what you said. You have made your point and I agree to disagree on the sources you provided. Is there any other source you can find with indepth coverage on her career? If not, we do not need to discuss further and let closer analyze. RangersRus (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As has been repeated many times, there does not need to be in-depth coverage of her career. She verifiably meets a subject-specific notability guideline, WP:NACTOR, and is therefore notable. End of story. C F A 💬 15:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For WP:SNG, there is no adequate sourcing and significant coverage. RangersRus (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We dont't have to repeat each other when there is just disagreements. Lets have others weigh in. RangersRus (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't have to be significant coverage, as long as the claim is verified. C F A 💬 15:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes NACTOR with roles in Sembaruthi and Mr. Manaivi. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: FWIW, additional criteria clearly mentions that 'People are likely to be notable' not necessarily. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: per RangersRus's source analysis. Also SALT this page to prevent it from being published before it's been reviewed. Editors citing NACTOR are misunderstanding that SNG. It states: "Such a person may be considered notable" if it meets either of the criteria, not that the person is notable. We need sources that provide significant coverage of the subject so that we can write an encyclopedic article. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors citing NACTOR are misunderstanding that SNG. Maybe. Unless you did not understand what some of us did say or why they !voted with a reference to the applicable guideline. An actor meeting WP:NACTOR is presumed notable; not necessarily notable but certainly not proven non-notable. Sources allowing to verify the roles are necessary. You have them. And coverage about her private life was not said to be non-significant, it was said not be significantly about her career....it's about her and just confirms she is a celebrity/famous personality, who is probably judged "notable" by certain media for some reason, which is obviously her career as an actress. Notability is a spectrum, and, indeed, when you have an actor with two lead roles in notable productions, NACTOR is quite clearly satisfied and their notability is very very highly likely, which this discussion allows to agree (or not) upon. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumed notable and Likely notable have very different meanings. 'Presumed' is a more stronger word for an occurance to happen, while 'likely' is a weaker word in comparison. The additional criteria mention 'Likely' and not 'Presumed'.
    It's about her and just confirms she is a celebrity/famous personality, who is probably judged "notable" by certain media for some reason, which is obviously her career as an actress. - The standards of Indian media regarding the notability of a person are quite poor, which is why people/companies often don't stop at just having their name in the news but instead aim to get their own article on Wikipedia.
    I don't believe anyone who has argued above has mentioned that the subject doesn't meet NACTOR criteria, rather they are asking for significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: per User:RangersRus's source analysis. I likewise concur with User:voorts's suggestion salting this mainspace until an approved draft may be completed. I find myself sympathetic to User:Jeraxmoira's assertion regarding standards of media. Entertainment and sports-based churnalism sometimes makes notability discussions of BLPs complicated. Asserting the relative importance of roles without proper citation in RS is pure synthesis. Wikipedia is not People (magazine) or the cultural equivalent elsewhere. BusterD (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: I agree with RangersRus's assertions. Draftify is the best thing we can do for now. If, in the future, she gets some good sources with significant coverage, it can be created via AfC. GrabUp - Talk 07:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Geo Entertainment

[edit]
List of programs broadcast by Geo Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another one that fails WP:NLIST. I removed everything that does not have a reference or a Wikipedia page and there are only three current original programs. Everything else falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I did a WP:BEFORE in an attempt to find sourcing that talks about their programming as a whole and was unable to find anything reliable. I recommend a redirect of the name and maybe include the three current programs on the main Geo Entertainment page as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can point out the coverage where it "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources?" --CNMall41 (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
... Television Dramas and the Global Village Storytelling Through Race and Gender; Women and TV Culture in Pakistan, Gender, Islam and National Identity; Media Imperialism in India and Pakistan
contain passages that address the programming and content of the network as a set. Or this list. or this kind of pages. Or this kind of articles. Keep as a standard split as I'v repeated many times. See the category for those lists. I will not reply anymore as I've said multiple times on other Afd pages what I thought, and insisted a broader consensus should be established before nominating this type of pages (see Afd concerning Hum TV programming, where I had presented sources too, btw, but this too was ignored, so why bother?). So, again, I'll leave it at that even if there are questions, pings, comments, etc. And again size-wise, especially since users regularly perform drastic cuts before nominating pages, the merge is possible. I just don't think it is necessary. If it happens, I am inviting you again to check all redirects (I had done it last time, which you concurred was a concern but guess who checked the double redirects after all?) Good luck. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And we are right back to NEWSORGINIDA. I only checked the first reference and didn't waste my time going deeper. [https://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/instep-today/589695-top-drama-serials-on-geo-entertainment-this-year bylined by "Instep Desk." --CNMall41 (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After all, this rude reply deserves a final comment: so you ask me to provide sources although I said I had no time but don't even open all links and ignore the academic study and the books? Just like last time!!! No comment on whether NEWSORGINDIA applies on the one source you opened, but hey. I hope the closer is an admin who will comment on your attitude. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, I don't think there's anything rude here. Just be careful when using GUNREL sources to establish WP:GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.....Thank you so much for your advice but that is clearly not the point, I'm afraid. Follow the sequence of events, please.
But since we're here, would you happen to have a link mentioning that The News International is considered generally unreliable? I'll be careful and check again myself so as not to waste your time. Let me check ...Surprise! It's quite the opposite, it's considered generally reliable, is that not correct? (on a page you yourself created!!!)? Again, that is not the point, but since I'm replying again, despite having said I wouldn't, I thought better to check again.....as I had indeed (not only by checking the page you created(in your userspace) but also the noticeboard for reliable sources and the board for perennial sources, before posting it in the first place, mind you.....
But never mind. Even the NEWSORGINDIA thing is not the point; the issue is not reading the sources one has asked for! whatever they are; and I don't think you can discard them but again, that is not the point. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Don't jump to conclusions and before making claims a page you yourself created!, check the history of the page. The page was actually created by UPE sock farms to game the system, and I moved it to my user NS. How do you even know about this page? Are you in cahoots with them? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I had missed this. My bad, you didn't create it, it's in your user space and I thought it was your work. I apologise for thinking you had worked on that page! Will amend my comment. No comment on the rest of your reply but feel free to ask at the proper venue if that is a real concern. But to the point: The News International is generally reliable, is it not?:D -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The News itself is RS, but as @CNMall41 pointed out, this specific coverage is not reliable for the reasons they explained. Therefore, it shouldn't count towards establishing GNG. Regarding feel free to ask at the proper venue if that is a real concern. Sure, I'll take it to the proper venue when and if I deem it necessary and when I've enough evidence to support my report. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Still waiting for your apologies. And your point was "GUNREL", as you repeat below; so, no, it's not GUNREL, that's what I thought. QED. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source dramaspice.net you cited is indeed GUNREL. Oh, why on earth should I apologize to you? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last-minute adjustment drifting from the precise topic of the original conversation :D but even then, I will reply. Maybe Dramaspice is not independent and should not be used and maybe, it is not a good source but that is not what WP:GUNREL stands for (not listed there, which is the precise point of GUNREL, not a description but a list established by a consensus). Or just don't user "GUNREL" but other wording then. And even pretending it was, that would leave us with 5 non-GUNREL sources that you ignore, :D, including a fully available academic article focusing on the programs as a set in a comparative study. But maybe you did not have the time to open it, and that's probably my fault.
As for why you should have apologised, I'm not the one who will explain that to you, I'm afraid. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do not see how that is rude. I am only responsible for what I say, not how you interpret it. What I was pointing out is you have a history of ignoring NEWSORGINDIA in AfD discussions. The News International is considered reliable yes, but not THIS PARTICULAR REFERENCE as it is clearly churnalism. Just like Forbes is considered generally reliable but sources written by non-staff writers in Forbes are not. Not sure how to make that any clearer. It is ad nauseam at this point to go further when the first source is just a repeat of the same argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41, Not only has a history of disregarding NEWSORGINDIA in AfD's but also consistently relying on GUNREL sources to establish GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really nasty and undue comment.....so inappropriate. Hope you will apologise.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a history of ignoring WP:NEWSORGINDIA is an inappropriate comment here: but, please, do feel free to report me at the appropriate forum if you think I am of bad faith and that my input here and elsewhere (as you clearly assert) is disruptive. In the present case, I disagree with what I understand of your interpretation of that information page, an interpretation which is not the consensus, as far as I can see, and I simply do not understand your explanation (or lack thereof): "use of generic bylines not identifying an individual reporter " is one sign that a source might not be independent, not THE proof that you cannot use it at all. But again, that was not my point, as you can see if you make the effort of reading me with attention; and I cannot see why you are focusing on that particular section of an information page when replying to the 6 sources mentioned.
And what I find rude, in case you really did not understand, in the present discussion, is the fact that even if I was not expecting thanks for providing sources at your request in an Afd you iniated, you blatantly and explicitly ignored all of them but one you discarded contemptuously (rightly so or not (not the point, again)) and continue to do so, as you don't even mention them... I'll leave it at that, now. I don't understand the end of your reply but I guess it does not really matter, as I finally give up, this time too. Again, I do hope the closing administrator will comment on this issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was no intent to be rude but I understand if you are concerned about the comment. I do not have an apology unfortunately but would recommend going to ANI should you feel my conduct is out of line.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Saqib/Mushy Yank please take the dispute elsewhere. You've weighed in sufficiently here. Please allow others to be heard.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IP. You cited a manual of style, not a notability guideline. Can you point to the references that talk about the programming as a whole which is required per WP:NLIST? We have categories that do the same thing as what you propose. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:15, 6 August 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=1239056937"