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.
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:
This article should be deleted. The article highlights his film career, but his career is WP:TOOSOON. He has had three uncredited TV roles, one credited TV role 3 years ago, one uncredited movie role, and two credited movie roles. It is premature to give this actor a Wikipedia article. The article does not demonstrate GNG with its sources and it is reasonable to assume someone with such a small filmography could not meet that standard (yet). While his parents are two very talented actors, but notability is not inherited. Mpen320 (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The criteria for WP:DIRECTOR to which I believe you are alluding is 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). Neither of his films has been covered in this way. The films do not show up on the Box Office Mojo grossing lists. Forty Winks is an 80 minute movie (barely a feature) and has four reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Atrabilious, which is at least a full length film, has a whopping five. For context, Paddington 2 has 251 reviews. Neither film's gross shows up on Box Office Mojo, so they were not widely released. Depending on what one can find about Atrabilious, it would be just one single thing and still not meet WP:GNG. --Mpen320 (talk) 19:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being serious??? I'm telling you Citizen Kane received more coverage than Paddington 2 , which everyone knows, and you feel compelled to check the number of comments on Rotten Tomatoes and call that "trolling" and a lie??? Just educate yourself. I will make no further comments. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)20:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see now that I 1) got a little too wrapped up in this and 2) should have not read your thing so literally (i.e. more not equalling more reviews, but rather general SIGCOV). If you have any sources, as I said, please provide.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fawlty Towers Delete Since the entire list depends on the index of one source, The Complete Fawlty Towers, this meets the spirit and definition of a copyright violation. And an unlikely search term as characters is more likely than cast members, which the average reader would easily know could be found in the main article. Nate•(chatter)19:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another dime-a-dozen TV weatherman article, with hardly any content since its 2008 creation that fails to establish why subject is notable. Sources before and after death are primary, with no viable third-party coverage. 💥Casualty• Hop along. •08:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no secondary sources that provide information about this person; the entire article is based on primary sources and the article itself admits that little is known outside of government copyright documentation. As a result of the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Bill Hansen, he is in the credits as an editor for a variety of television programs and related media that may become Wikipedia articles in the future. Most of all, he has composed music with a variety of notable composers. The other references can likely be found, as requested in the first banner. Starlighsky
Future notability is not a consideration at AfD. And his notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from other composers he may have worked with, or from projects he may have worked on that may (or more likely may not) be notable. What we need is reliable, secondary sources. Can you provide those?? Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on same reasoning in the AfD for the 2023 ceremony. Main page Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards exists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Attempted (twice) to redirect as an WP:ATD but IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point. CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on same reasoning in the AfD for the 2023 ceremony. Main page Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards exists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Attempted (twice) to redirect as an WP:ATD but IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point. CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on same reasoning in the AfD for the 2023 ceremony. Main page Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards exists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Attempted (twice) to redirect as an WP:ATD but IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point. CNMall41 (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on same reasoning in the AfD for the 2023 ceremony. Main page Zee Marathi Utsav Natyancha Awards exists which is also likely not notable so not seeing how this would meet notability guidelines. Cannot find enough coverage to establish it for this specific year. Attempted (twice) to redirect as an WP:ATD but IPs who are likely UPE have removed every time so would be opposed to any redirect at this point. CNMall41 (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have been through this before. SPLITLIST is not a notability guideline. Can you point out the references that talk about this as a whole? This vote is a continued fallacy by assertion. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (for now) to Nexstar Media Group Surprisingly bare-bones article for the founder/CEO one of the largest broadcast networks and media groups, but he's a more 'silent' CEO so coverage seems to be limited to press releases and events where he does want to be public facing. Nate•(chatter)01:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a lot of untapped sources for improvement of this page. [2] would be high on my list and is from 2005. I've tapped coverage of Sook in improving especially WDKY-TV, KOCB, and WYOU. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both [1] and [2] seems to be interview style article. Ref [1] is definently an interview. Ref [2] looks as though was he has said is just lifted verbatim. I'm not confident in any of them, so I won't be closing the Afd. scope_creepTalk08:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted to clean up but found a bunch of WP:FAKEREF and unreliable sources. Everything here appears to be a WP:WALLEDGARDEN created by UPE Sock in an attempt to show notability. There are sources about some of the individual networks but as a whole there is nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT which is required to show notability under WP:NCORP. CNMall41 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ALL. Per nom. Poor to unreliable sources with no significant coverage on the network and its channels and fails to meet organization criterias to pass notability. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I initially PRODed this article with the following rationale: "Non-notable series. The article is completely unsourced, and searches did not turn up any kind of coverage in reliable sources at all. The only biggest claim to notability in the article is winning a non-notable award. Fails the WP:GNG." It was later de-proded with the reasoning of "At least consider a redirect, this being a sequel". However, I can find no article on the film that this series is a sequel to, so there is no eligible Redirect target that I can come up with. So, I am sending it to AFD with the same rationale as the original PROD. Rorshacma (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, 48Hours is a New Zealand short film competition that the original movie was created for, not the name of the first movie. This article later states that the original film was just called "Jungle Fever" (which, of course, is unrelated to the actual theatrical Jungle Fever film). Also, despite this article claiming that the original was an "award winning" 48hours film, it is not listed on the competition's article as having won anything. Rorshacma (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other commenters. There’s next to nothing about this movie or the movie it is a sequel to online and even the few crappy sources that do exist disagree on what it is, with some calling it a movie and others a TV series. The article itself is also of very poor quality and seems to have been at least partly copy pasted from its short themoviedb.org entry. Archimedes157 (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. Fails WP:GNG. I agree with all the other Delete votes here and without sources it is very unclear what sequel is this of and this definitely has nothing to do with Jungle Fever film. RangersRus (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. When I was patrolling this page, I couldn't find any pieces on him — nothing close to WP:SIGCOV — in a quality British national WP:RS, and zero outside of the UK. As a west-end actor, he is going to get mentions in the media from shows, but I can't see that the media find him particularly notable as a standalone subject? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find either anything in previews nor any mention of him in the play reviews. It a complete mystery to me how they can jump to a keep !vote almost immediately without presenting any evidence per WP:THREE. I did a search using reliable sources search which covers the major Canadian newspapers and not a thing came up, on him. There is reviews of the plays. You would think there would be some mention outwith passing mentions. scope_creepTalk14:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thewikizoomer: What sources exactly. You seem to flit from Afd to Afd without providing any evidence for you keep !votes. WP:THREE is considered best practice for proving the person is notable. Do you have any reference that prove this person is notable? scope_creepTalk16:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged 8 years ago as unsourced it would be too time consuming for a reader to check if this is correct or not. I checked a couple of things and found them wrong (2 shows mentioned as still running have apparently ended). Chidgk1 (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No questioning the notability of the series. Trivial mentions and characterizations in low-quality pop culture websites as your Google News search supplies does not indicate stand-alone notability outside of the context of the show. The character, despite being a lead, does not inherit notability from the show. I fail to see the encyclopedic value of the Looper article of recycled Reddit comments or the simple plot synopses found in the Collider article. I'm not even sure how to address the The Seymour Tribune piece. Mbdfar (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not sure how to address an article that ran in a print newspaper, then perhaps you should consider dropping it. Here's another source from near the very beginning of the series: "From New Kid to tough cop", David Hiltbrand, The Hackensack Record (November 11, 2011), p. G35. By the way, Newspapers.com returns over 800 hits for "Danny Reagan" "Blue Bloods", so I can do this all day. BD2412T03:43, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only say that because it is a fluff article relating the character to biblical proverbs which does not seem encyclopedic, though it at least is relating the character to something outside of the show. That Hackensack article is about the actor, and I do not question the notability of Donnie Wahlberg. This is a very unimpressive WP:THREE. Mbdfar (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hackensack article is about the actor being the portrayer of the character, even as early as 2011. There are also over a dozen Google Scholar returns for "Danny Reagan" "Blue Bloods", which indicate that there is also some degree of scholarly examination of the character, beyond the pop culture coverage. BD2412T03:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a popular actor playing in a popular show will get coverage. Did you click on any of those Scholar links? I see undergraduate papers, theses, and trivial mentions. There were a couple I could not access, perhaps you can take some time to find out if there is anything usable. Mbdfar (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. from the history, was created by removing content from the list, follows that if creation is undone, removal of that content from the list must be undone. New sourced material should be merged as well. Same should go for Jamie Reagan, can be done bold/speedy. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, after some research, I'm just finding out that 160 episodes were filmed with the actor "Swapnil Joshi" but then they were deleted and refilmed from episode 73, Tilak has also wiped some articles too just because they contained some footage. and while deleted by some user, It also did air on ZEE TV, it has many indecisive things, for exmaple some sources say it aired from '93 to '96 while others say it's aired from '93 to '96 but later shifted to DD1, some other say that it was aired in '99 on ZEE TV for the first time and some that it aired on DD2-Metro and shifted to ZEETV and/or DD, It's very hard to find truthful sources, as all talk about the same thing but say it differently. for say the example mentioned above. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two mentions that verify it exists is hardly enough to establish notability. If that were the case, pretty much every television show would be notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All articles talk about the same thing, just their matter is different, even with some or for say a lot of digging can be done but it results to the repetitive articles. Though for me deletion is not okay. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page has been up since 2009, and by now we all realize after quite some digging that no reliable sources with indepth significant coverage is to be found. Redirect is better than to keep. Right? RangersRus (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth entertaining a discussion when the first reference you supplied falls squarely under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Won't waste time looking at the rest as it seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes a reliable source. A redirect is acceptable as we can verify it exists, but nothing that shows it is notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I think, you're actually right. I think deletion would be ok, as there's no adequate source to find" - This is written as if you are. At least, it does agree there is no adequate sourcing so without it I am wondering your policy-based reasoning for keeping it. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're talking about cast, I just corrected some errors, and if you're talking about the above para, It's common knowledge to know DD didn't stream it in '97 and hence it was handed to ZEE TV, and Sony & Star did stream it following 2001. Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Common knowledge? I certainly didn't know about it. In Wikipedia we are allowed to state the obvious (e.g., the sky is blue), but what you added would be WP:OR at best. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure your assessment is completely correct. Taking just one example, source 5 offers very significant coverage beside an interview, in a bylined article in a very reliable newspaper. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)07:38, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sourve 5 says "Krishna made Swapnil Joshi a star overnight; co-director Moti Sagar talks about the TV show." This source is not independent of the claim by the makers themselves. Source needs to be completely secondary independent. RangersRus (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot make it any more clearer than what the journalist himself said on the top of his article about the maker talking about the show and anything that journalist wrote in that article is the outcome of the interview. It is not an indepedent source at all. I am leaving at that. RangersRus (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following parts can be attributed Kavita Awaasthi, journalist for The Hindustan Times, based on her interview with Sagar; the media outlet being considered generally reliable, they can be used to verify a number of facts that contribute to the notability of the program, such as, at least:
After making the successful TV show Ramayan, producer Ramanand Sagar wanted to tap into another epic show — the Bhagavat Puran. Produced by Ramanand, Subhash Sagar and Prem Sagar, and directed by Ramanand, Anand Sagar and Moti Sagar, Shri Krishna was one of the biggest grossers for Doordarshan during the seven years it was on air. The national broadcaster had a limit on the number of episodes it could air in the ’80s, but the ’90s brought about a change in these rules. A producer could now make a show for a longer duration.
Music composer Ravindra Jain composed the music for this serial. The title song, ‘Shree Krishna Govind Hare Murari’, became popular in India and abroad. The show ran for more than seven years, and had over 200 episodes. The show covered Krishna’s life, from his birth to the time of his grandchildren.
The show was shot in Gujarat’s Umbergaon and Vadodara, where they put up huge sets.
Swapnil had a huge fan following because of the show. People thought he was Krishna.
This, in my opinion, in a 2016 article about a 1993 program, can be given a certain credit and at least contributes to the apparent notability of the show (that had, as I am sure you have noticed, 221 episodes and originally aired during 6 years.....) and I think that the material, if the page was redirected, would be lost, which would be detrimental to the encyclopaedia. (And that's just one source). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)16:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
omg finally for goodness' sake someone mentions this, I'm not trying to be rude but why can't someone just read the sources and watch the show for 2 whole minutes to get some fruit out of it. GOD! (replied to mushy yank)Auspiciouswastaken (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, do you just wish to rename it? Feel free. (A note would seem enough but if you think your title is better, I support the move) Or to move it to Draft and merge with your Draft? I’m OK with that too but not opposed to Keep, given your exchange above. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)21:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that this is at AfD, we have to wait for the close. I am not opposed to Delete if you, the creator and only content contributor, really wish, but it’s not my call. Can I ask why you want this deleted? Is it not better to merge? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)13:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. You should bring an article to AFD if you are seeking its deletion. Lots of chit chat here but so far no consensus over what should happen with this article. Please give ONE bolded vote. Don't offer a combination of possibilities, just state what you want to happen today. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Liz, I am honestly quite surprised by the content and tone of this relist. The page about how AfDs should be conducted says we can COMBINE various possibilities (at least TWO, and that is a quite common way to !vote, as you obviously know, so no, sorry, one should not ONLY bold ONE !vote if they consider two options are possible ); and the chit chat (I am not sure why you would want to use that word, that might sound dismissive to participants in this discussion and discourage them; such is at least my case) seemed like a constructive and polite discussion to me, and its goal was to reach consensus. For the rest, I think the nominator just changed their mind during the course of the discussion and originally wished to delete it. At the same time, the page creator changed their mind too and went from rename to delete; they eventually asked to have their own page deleted but I assume, your relist not mentioning that issue, that my reply indicating that we should wait for a close was correct (I indicated not opposed to Delete to allow the closing admin to choose that option). So, very sorry, I do not mean to be contrarian (and generally !vote for 1/2 for possibilities), but here, although I understand it is unusual and can appear contradictory, I will stand by my multiple !vote and do not mind if it goes one of the indeed multiple ways I bolded (some worded as "not opposed to", some being conditional, deletion if that is the wish of the creator; keep and rename if this is the target of the other draft redirecting to it or redirect and merge if it is made the other way around). My idea was precisely to allow a quick and easy close. Maybe I was wrong but that's what I meant. Now, it is true that no clear consensus has emerged so far. But that is rather common in AfDs and they can be closed as non consensus in that case. Most of all, a consensus might emerge from our chit chat, although it will be most likely without any further input from myself. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)11:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The problem appears to be with WP:CORPDEPTH in particular, since there was only trivial coverage in virtually every source I found. The sources already in the article are IMDB or trivial announcements such as a business agreement or the opening of a studio. Tagged for notability since 2011. Fathoms Below(talk)19:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or weak keep. The current article state has too much WP:UNDUE plot and could be cut down to fit in the LoC no problem (most other main characters don't have standalone articles either). On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if there are enough sources to turn this topic into a Good Article, so it needn't stay merged forever. – sgeurekat•c12:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sgeureka. I have my doubts about the sources, but a merge is a good WP:ATD, and allows it to be improved. (And potentially split even if I do not see evidence of it yet.) Shooterwalker (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable for only being the main bachelor of The Bachelor (American TV series) season 2, the target that the nominated page should be redirected to. (The Bachelor (American TV series) is an alternative, but I prefer just season-specific.) His activities outside the series don't measure up to make WP:BIO1E (if not WP:BLP1E) inapplicable. Furthermore, the second season of The Bachelor may not have been a major event as it is perceived or marketed to be, despite good or decent viewership. If the cited rules don't apply, how about WP:PAGEDECIDE instead? George Ho (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail notability guidelines. Most of the article’s sources are student newspapers by the author’s own description. Could not find reliable significant coverage in my search. Has been previously deleted. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was kept as a draft. It was nominated for deletion as a draft by a non-good-faith actor. But that is not evidence that there was a consensus that the subject is notable after someone challenged its notability. Drafts are not deleted for lack of notability so a draft being kept does not mean that editors thought that the subject is notable. —Alalch E.15:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, maybe, but the page was discussed and the then-draft found promising by some users, whereas deletion was NOT discussed, so that stating ’has been previously deleted’ here (an AfD venue, where consensus is what matters) is misleading imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)21:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about all there is [3] for sourcing and it's not enough. Rest of what's used is marginally reliable sources per Source Highlighter, so not much of anything we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't find any substantial, reliable sources for this. Most of what is here are student publications, including F Newsmagazine, which is a student publication of the Arts Institute of Chicago. The coverage in Collider and The Gamer is limited to a few paragraphs in a page with many other entries, and formulaic in style. AKA: promotional. Searching turns up lots of TikTok and other bits, none which have any content about the "show". Lamona (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Egyptian actor of dubious notability. Sole provided reference does not cover subject in depth, nothing better found in English, but better references may be available in Arabic. Possibly eligible for a G5 speedy because author has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet, but taking to AfD on the off chance that evidence of notability can be found. --Finngalltalk22:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the subject appears to pass WP:ENT because he “has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.” On the other hand sourcing isn’t great. There are a couple of other Mohamed Tharwats (not actors) and some of the sources about this one are chatty interviews but I found 1, 2 and 3 after a non-intensive search. Mccapra (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is an unreferenced list of productions that he may or may not have acted in. Nothing would be lost be deleting, and if anyone ever wanted to write a real article about him with, y'know, sources, they could do that at any time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, please assess new additions to the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I so much sense resubmitting after another. But if there is a bit notability, like appearing on non-notable films, and likely may later be notable in the future, I will support userfying. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!15:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for technical merrits. Either all CT series should be deleted, or (preferably) all should be merged into a kind of episode list. There's no point in singling this page out. – sgeurekat•c07:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stay, you have reliable sources The Times India, The Hindustan News, News18, among others, it also has encyclopedic development and maintains relevance in what it does as a video blogger. Alon9393 (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Already at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That particular role is certainly not a lead but could be considered significant. See plot Summary. (If ImDb cannot be used to establish notability, I don’t think it is fair to use it to establish non-notability) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)14:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Long established consensus states must be a lead role. On your comment about non-notabilty, you can't have both sides of the coin. This is where notability is proved, the final arbiter. If you have sources, post them up instead of relying on non-arguments outside consensus that doesn't add anything to the argument. scope_creepTalk10:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Long established consensus states must be a lead role. No, that is simply not true. SIGNIFICANT, not necessarily lead (or change the guideline). As for the rest, no comment; thank you.. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)22:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Lead roles are all significant but not all significant roles are leading roles and to state it is the same thing is obviously erroneous. But I'll leave it at that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)21:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much a non-notable actor, with bit parts. Nothing showing she's had a starring role in any project, which is the bare minimum needed for notability,. Articles are simply confirmation of presence in various film/television projects. Oaktree b (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable actress. Fails WP:NACTOR. Poor to unreliable sources with 6 sources clearly unreliable and the remaining all are very poor with no significant coverage on the subject. These poor sources are all about how subject celebrated her birthday, thanking nurses on nurse Day, home tour and such. Subject has not made a significant achievement worthy of notice in her career and her career misses significant coverage in sources too. Fails WP:N. RangersRus (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(My initial !vote above is about Zen-chan Tsū-chan). I hadn't seen this was a bundled nom when I !voted through the assisted script. Procedural keep. These series have very little in common. And it's hard to discuss and improve the 3 at the same time without long tedious explanations and comments about what precisely is relevant to each case. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)11:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC) (The nominator indicates they nominated the pages "with the same reason" but the 2nd article has >10 references to reliable newspapers on JaWP, for example.)[reply]
I would like to see some way to keep the content, and suggest a merge to Fuji Television. For the ones which are made by Fuji, which doesn't include Zen-chan (please, please, don't do combined nominations of disparate articles!). Not sure about Zen-chan, as like @Mushy Yank this came up as a single article for me and I hadn't given it any thought before starting this commentOn Pinch to Punch it's unfortunate that there is so little secondary material out there although it seems even the primary material has been lost. This attests to its importance in the context of the development of Anime. This article could be perfectly happy as a stub, verified by what little information is out there, but it's hard to make a case for IAR on this. Keep based on the anime encyclopedia entry and the existence of multiple shorter sources in the en. article and in the jp. article. Although the encyclopedia is the only lengthy treatment found, the article subject is clearly a launching point in the history of Japanese anime. The article is verifiable and the project benefits (and has little to lose) from these stub articles. Since this is basically an IAR argument, I've struck my inconsistent comment above. I still wouldn't object to a merge as a backup. Oblivy (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with developing these articles would be our inability to access archives which would have information about an anime series from 50 years ago. Hard to imagine that Pinch and Punch, a series with 156 episodes airing on a national TV channel, wouldn't be notable with access to the correct archives. If someone is interested, perhaps Fuji or the National Film Archive of Japan can help? I would personally either keep or merge the articles at a minimum. DCsansei (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is no consensus here. But I don't see any support for Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage in reliable sources, including BBC and The Hindu, and bylined articles in other media, indicating her notability as social media personality, politician, or related to her death. She meets the requirements, in my opinion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)20:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi M S Hassan. Thanks for reviewing this article. However Wikipedia platform is created with principles and articles of public interest which has notability and I feel this article has. Request you to withdraw this notice.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm finding the same as bonadea. Here is something more recent that mentions her, but again in the context of her death and without significant biographical coverage. -- asilvering (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that there is limited coverage of her in the context of her striking another politician with a shoe (example), which is also not very useful for WP:GNG, and some routine election coverage (example). So while I think it's plausible that there is solid biographical coverage out there, I don't think we've found it yet. If anyone can turn up an obituary (rather than an article about the circumstances of her death) that might give us something to go on. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just from a quick search, appears across all major news media in country, both regarding death and various controversies. --Soman (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Comment: I so much sense resubmitting after another. But if there is a bit notability, like appearing on non-notable films, and likely may later be notable in the future, I will support userfying. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 15:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
