Shortcut

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. 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

Seth Tobias

AfDs for this article:
Seth Tobias (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)

Created in the wake of his death and kept once when notability standards were different. I find no evidence he was a notable businessman. He was quoted and had some notable clients, but neither confers notability to him. Star Mississippi 13:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a non-notable individual and we're WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Don't see anything in the article to indicate any kind of notability. Canterbury Tail talk 17:42, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compass Light

Compass Light (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 article fails WP:GNG; some searching not saw significant coverage in any reliable source Loewstisch (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has been in mainspace without a single reference for over 15 years. Does not meet WP:NCORP, let alone WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Utsav Plus

Utsav Plus (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 nominating this article for deletion because it don't prove the notability of the subject, Utsav Plus, as required by Wikipedia's general notability guideline WP:GNG. The article lacks reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of Utsav Plus. The single source cited is a primary source (a YouTube video from the channel itself), which is insufficient to establish notability. The article makes claims about the channel's launch and programming, but these are not supported by any independent verification. A redirect to StarPlus might be considerable. However, given the current lack of independent sourcing, deletion is the appropriate outcome. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Manners, Duchess of Rutland

Emma Manners, Duchess of Rutland (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)

She is married into nobility, and does not seem notable as a businesswoman or podcaster. I don't think a redirect to Belvoir_Castle#Present_use would benefit the reader, nor would a merger be Due. She's separated from David Manners, 11th Duke of Rutland so I'm not sure a merger there makes sense, and redirecting a woman to her spouse always seems odd to me. Star Mississippi 02:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Utsav Gold

Utsav Gold (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 nominating this article for deletion because it fails to establish the notability of the subject, Utsav Gold, as required by Wikipedia's notability guideline for television channels WP:NTV and the general notability guideline WP:GNG. The article provides no reliable, independent sources that offer significant coverage of Utsav Gold. Without verifiable evidence from reliable sources, the article does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. A redirect to Star Gold might be considerable. However, without such sources, deletion is appropriate. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Utsav Bharat

Utsav Bharat (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 nominating this article for deletion because it don't prove the notability of the subject, Utsav Bharat , as required by Wikipedia's notability guideline for television channels WP:NTV and the general notability guideline WP:GNG. The article lacks reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of Utsav Bharat itself. The sources currently cited in the article are about Star Bharat, a different channel[1]. This means there is no verifiable evidence to support the existence or notability of Utsav Bharat as a separate entity. A redirect to Star Bharat might be appropriate. However, without such sources, the article should be deleted. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ahmed (businessman)

Syed Ahmed (businessman) (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 non-notable candidate in the early UK series of The Apprentice. Searching for reliable sources brings back nothing except a small amount of tabloid articles, which are not suitable. The article appears to have also been edited by the subject.

As the title has a "businessman" disambiguator, I don't think it's suitable to have this as a redirect to the main Apprentice article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cross (character)

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

To quote myself from this recent move discussion:

As for your point about the character, I think my initial proposal already covers that; the page was for the character, but that article was deleted via AfD. Three years isn't a ton of time for notability, especially for a character whose popularity peaked decades ago. I see that [this article] exists (and that you created it), but I'm not sure that would survive a second AfD. Most of the sources in that article are about the movies/TV series rather than the character himself, and I'm not sure the ones that are about the character are reliable (especially not Passionate in Marketing, nor the reference to another Wikipedia article which I know for a fact is against the rules).

The article's creator responded to that message saying they were "sure there are many tons of reliable source about the character him self online just need a lil bit of searching", but in the handful of weeks since that comment, the only additional sources they've added are also primarily about the franchise and not strictly the character. I think the character is generally underdiscussed in these sources, and that there is still not enough material for a standalone article. I would not oppose a merger of a smaller selection of sourced material to Alex Cross, and regardless I think this should redirect there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep the main character in a book series as prolific as the cross series is (32 books 3 movies and a tv show) seems notable enough although sourcing is an issue Theking49393 (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it can't overcome the sourcing issue, it shouldn't be kept. We can't just assume notability, and the franchise already has multiple other articles. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You referenced our previous discussion regarding the move of the other page. The article's creator responded to that message saying they were "sure there are many tons of reliable source about the character him self online just need a lil bit of searching", but in the handful of weeks since that comment, the only additional sources they've added are also primarily about the franchise and not strictly the character. I think the character is generally underdiscussed in these sources, and that there is still not enough material for a standalone article.
That being said, I originally intended to do more sourcing for the article but got sidetracked with other commitments and forgot. Nonetheless, the sources currently cited in the article already meet the GNG. They do not solely focus on the movies alone; rather, they also discuss the character alongside the films or series within the same sources. Afro 📢Talk! 06:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, I want to clarify that I’m not a big fan of AfD discussions, and my vote to keep is not based on the fact that I created the article—I want to ensure a fair assessment. The character in question has been covered in over 40 media sources and is recognized as a fictional character for a reason.

I’m not sure what kind of sources are expected beyond those already provided, as they discuss the character while also covering the related films or novels in the same publication. To me, this is a reasonable approach. Not all fictional characters receive standalone coverage like DC and Marvel superheroes do, yet Alex Cross has been a well-established figure for over a decade. Dismissing his notability outright would overlook his long-standing presence in literature and media, for example, [1] [2] [3] they are similar characters with similar style of publications here o n wikipedia. Afro 📢Talk! 4:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Redirect to Alex Cross (novel series). The article's main notability drawing statements are entirely unsourced, including the entire Legacy section, meaning this article contains heavy WP:OR. The sources provided in this discussion are from dubious sources (FromTheFourThrow seems to be a WP:WORDPRESS published WP:BLOG site, LikeADad.net seems dubious at best, and ForensicPsychologyOnline has no authors attached and seems to be an entirely promotional site). Any other sources in the article are WP:ROUTINE coverage, like announcements of the character's novel series being adapted to TV. There are also several sources that are all plot summary, which does not help with WP:NOTPLOT, including the PsychologyOnline source, which is entirely taking plot summary from a ROUTINE media announcement. I see no evidence of any actual coverage on this character that would constitute the WP:SIGCOV needed for an article, and all comments from those significantly involved with the article have been WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST arguments without any actual meat to back it up. I would need some actual SIGCOV to be shown to be convinced of this subject meeting notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 13:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm doing a search since I could swear there have been articles focusing on the character, but I can't seem to find them. Much of the coverage (via Google search) focuses specifically on the film, books, and series, without covering the character in a way that could be seen as showing individual notability. I am finding some sourcing by looking up my old college's database, but since I'm no longer a current student I don't have any way of verifying that the coverage focuses on the character. It does seem promising though. I'm including some of the most promising in the article in a further reading section, but then there are ones like this that are a bit more vague. I am leaning towards it possibly being usable given that it's similar in scope to this. It also deals with black men in film, but the author focuses more on how the character is represented as opposed to purely or predominantly on the film.
Now if sourcing is found, this article will need to be pretty much gutted. It's written in an in-universe style, is largely unsourced, and some of the content seems to be written from a fan perspective. Something I'd recommend adding would be coverage of how people have responded to a white man writing a black character - Patterson has received both praise and scrutiny. That topic could also potentially show independent notability for the character as it does focus on how the character has been written. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found some other potentially usable sources here and here. As with before, these are all paywalled and as such I can't tell how usable they might be. I've also made a couple of tweaks to the page to remove some of the fan POV - I've left the background section alone since that would need some work and also is written to be an in-universe type description of the character, so there's a bit more leeway there. Still, it needs work for the fan POV.
I am leaning towards the character being independently notable and would normally volunteer to re-write the article, but given that the majority of available sourcing is paywalled it makes it very difficult for me to do without going to a public library, which I don't really have the time to do. I also do think there's some validity in the point that the character has been adapted to multiple forms of media (film, TV, comics), so a character page could help collect information on the differences between these adaptations. Although on that note, I think that this could be somewhat resolved by making a franchise page. Currently everything is on the novel series article, which kind of makes it wonky - there's an article on the film series, but I think a franchise page could help tie everything together a bit better. That's not the point of this AfD though, but something I wanted to put out there if anyone was interested. It'd be a big project and is a bit more than I can take on myself right now, admittedly. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't stand the biography section and rewrote it to be at least somewhat more in keeping with Wikipedia's standards. I've removed some of the unsourced content such as his abilities - I mentioned that he was a boxer in the fictional character biography section. The others should be implied with the biography section. If this is kept an abilities section can be rebuilt with proper sourcing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed the book list in favor of a prose section. It's redundant to the main article and takes up too much room. Plus it's kind of a given that he will either appear or be mentioned in every volume of his series. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've also done an overhaul of the article and removed the bulk of promotional prose. It's not a total rewrite but pretty close to it. The article still needs a lot of sourcing to back up various claims. I'm not really comfortable with some of the sourcing - the forensic psychology source has no info on who wrote anything or who runs it. I had to go to the TOU page to learn that it's maintained by XYZ Media. Looking for info on that doesn't bring up much, most of what I'm finding is web optimization and advertising - Google says it's linked to Wiley but I see no evidence of this. The page looks like it was primarily made to link to various colleges that are sponsoring the site to promote their schools. The profiles of various forensic psychologists (one of which is Alex Cross) seems to have been written as an aftersight. It's not super up front about it all being sponsored either, which is why I personally see it as unusable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ReaderofthePack Nice work! It was somewhat challenging to find independent, reliable sources for this character, as much of the available information comes directly from the novel, film, and television adaptations. I appreciate the effort you put into researching further. Alex is one of the most notable fictional detective characters, so I was quite surprised to discover that he doesn’t have his own Wikipedia biography. Thank you for taking the time to dig deeper. Afro 📢Talk! 06:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Willing to strike my previous vote and go Weak Keep. Article's a bit of a mess still but the cleaning by Reader has helped and I feel confident in saying this article can probably be expanded. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 12:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KTFL

AfDs for this article:
KTFL (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 TV station that was only on air for 5-6 years. No sources. Was kept under previous looser notability standards. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Szwimer

Jason Szwimer (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)

Coverage is limited. A few major publications wrote about his podcast, but all around the same time when it first launched so it's basically all advertisements and not particularly substantial. His name also comes up in coverage of the end of Arthur because it was announced in an episode of the podcast, but none of the coverage is focused on him or the podcast. NACTOR asks for "significant roles in multiple notable [projects]" (emphasis mine), and it seems to me that he only has one. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cinemoz

Cinemoz (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)

Aside from the subject not being notable enough, the article lacks significant information and has numerous issues. Although it has been around for more than a decade, these issues have not been resolved by readers, and the article has hardly evolved at all. This indicates that it has not garnered enough interest and suggests that it likely will not improve in the future. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 13:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acacia Forgot

Acacia Forgot (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)

Very little in-depth/non-trivial coverage. Does not meet GNG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She is quite literally still airing on the show, the article is obviously going to expand more until the show stops airing or she is eliminated. In addition, she is a well-rounded performer who has a lot more to offer than simply her run on a television show. There is no reason to delete this article.
The nomination stems from a person whose name is a wikipedia page with less content than the Acacia Forgot page... so... maybe just maybe this stems from a negatively minded conservative and not a real care towards Wikipedia guidelines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanahary - here Zanahary if you care so much about GNG how about you go try to delete an article that actually does not meet GNG and has very little in-depth/non-trivial coverage. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TOOSOON ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENTERTAINER 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You made this argument, about the page Zanahary, at the Kori King AFD. This is not an argument for keeping this page per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Not to mention your continued failure to assume good faith and stop Casting aspersions. Also you'll need to actually explain how this meets WP:ENT not just assert it. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject deserves to have a Wikipedia article and passes WP:GNG in my point of view. The subject has got significant media coverage and it is a no-brainer to advocate for retaining the content in the article. Abishe (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrietty (drag queen)

Arrietty (drag queen) (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)

Cannot find enough in-depth, non-trivial coverage for this person to meet GNG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP.
She is quite literally still airing on the show, the article is obviously going to expand more until the show stops airing or she is eliminated. In addition, she is a well-rounded performer who has a lot more to offer than simply her run on a television show. There is no reason to delete this article.
The nomination stems from a person whose name is a wikipedia page with less content than the Arrietty page... so... maybe just maybe this stems from a negatively minded conservative and not a real care towards Wikipedia guidelines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanahary - here Zanahary if you care so much about GNG how about you go try to delete an article that actually does not meet GNG and has very little in-depth/non-trivial coverage. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You got me. I'm a Malagasy sky deity jealous that my followers have dwindled to below the followers of this fabulous drag performer. I projected my consciousness into a field of clay to construct a golem that is now serving my divinity through Wikipedia.
Anyways, WP:CRYSTAL; WP:TOOSOON. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENTERTAINER
thank you, next. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Since the show is still in competition, this nomination is a few days premature. Let's see what happens this weekend. Bearian (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We wait for notability, not for persistent appearance of lack of notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett Stone

Emmett Stone (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. The only independent source which addresses the film in a scholarly way is the Murray OUP source which frankly is not significant under the criteria at WP:NFSOURCES. There's no critical commentary, and it consists only of a credits list and a brief one sentence plot summary. It describes the film as a "Tele film" but gives no named network or broadcast date. I searched TROVE database of Australian newspapers, magazines, and journals at the National Library of Australia and found only primary documents covering production costs as it appears the film was made through a government grant for developing young film makers (the production company Australian Film Theatre appears to have been a short lived government sponsored company that made only three works in 1985 before disappearing). I can find no evidence that this film was ever actually aired on television. It's very possible that it was never seen as there are no reviews in media archives or in google news, google scholar, jstor, ebscoe, proquest, etc, and no sources naming when it aired or on what network. The only thing I can find is credit listings that the film was made and went through a post production period. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goya (TV series)

Goya (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)

The sources here are unreliable and just putted to support inline citations. Not much coverage and failed the criteria of WP:GNG. Sackiii (talk) 09:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Icflix

Icflix (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)

Not notable. The service was available only for a short time but was unsuccessful and closed shortly after. It suddenly disappeared online without any further notice. It received temporary attention from some media outlets, which also faded quickly. ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 06:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Anzel

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

This is a promotional article about a nonnotable TV presenter and actress written by an editor blocked for UPE. It's already been PROD'd or I would have tagged it for proposed deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked for socking. Toadspike [Talk] 19:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kori King

Kori King (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 GNG. Can't find in-depth coverage of this person; all coverage seems to be about the season of a TV show that they're on. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She is quite literally still airing on the show, the article is obviously going to expand more until the show stops airing or she is eliminated. In addition, she is a well-rounded performer who has a lot more to offer than simply her run on a television show. There is no reason to delete this article.
The nomination stems from a person whose name is a wikipedia page with less content than the Kori King page... so... maybe just maybe this stems from a negatively minded conservative and not a real care towards Wikipedia guidelines. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:F983:1BB7:F09E:CFA1 (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Huh??? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're seriously going to try to make us believe that this article -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanahary- (which I am POSITIVE garners less views than Kori-Acacia-Arrietty INDIVIDUALLY) which contains a grand total of 5 sentences, 1 quote (with no references?!) and 6 references is totally fine and worthy of being the inspiration for your editor name. Yet your in-depth targeting of queer culture is valid?
Huh??? 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's lay off on the character attacks; there is no reason to assume User:Zanahary has a negative bias. Would a "negatively-minded" person be contributing to articles like Mpreg and Transgender history? Just because you do not agree with their rationale does not mean you should belittle them. If anything, we should assume the user cares about the subject matter enough to be editing. Doughbo (talk) 18:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My initial comment contained a theory. These are not character attacks. The Zanahary article contains 5 sentences and 1 quote (without references) with a total of 6 references underneath them.
This user has been targeting drag queen pages for deletion which is a point blank fact. Why would I assume this user cares about the subject matter when they are attempting to delete pages about queens? 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also the edits can be summarized as eliminating the words *According to* and adding the terms *interprets [...] as* within the portion about the movie Alien for MPreg. For Transgender History the user added and . Much wow!
I have faith in the fact that drag queens deserve their Wikipedia pages because they are famous regardless of the perspective of 1 editor. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so... maybe just maybe this stems from a negatively minded conservative and not a real care towards Wikipedia guidelines is an attack (by saying that they are WP:POVPUSHING), and even if it was just a theory, Casting aspersions is still considered a form of personal attack, and is thus prohibited on Wikipedia. I'm failing to see where you have rebutted they're actual points (that there's no coverage outside the show), instead simply repeating WP:ATAs like "they are famous" or the idea they'll be more notable in the future. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I apologize for my theory being considered a personal attack.
For my information, how is this not POVPUSHING? The editor has targeted 3 currently popular drag queens' pages within a short amount of time. We're supposed to just assume that this is a jolly coincidence in this political climate? Love that..
WP:ENT should be sufficient here. No one from the Great British Bake-Off or Survivor went on to have tours and garner international success (from my knowledge, congratulations if anyone did honestly I'd hope they have their own Wikipedia page as it would be well deserved in the event this did occur).
Does their youtube channel with 1.5M views and counting, not count? Does their tiktok with a current figure of over 10M likes not count? This is a page for a famous entertainer, how is they are famous not a point of contention for the page to be maintained?
I don't care if I'm booted off of Wikipedia. I do care that there is an unfair amount of hate being sent towards a marginalized population, which is now affecting the standing of their wikipedia pages. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editor has targeted 3 currently popular drag queens' pages within a short amount of time. We're supposed to just assume that this is a jolly coincidence until you have any sort of evidence, yes you are supposed to Assume good faith. It is not at all strange for somebody to notice a content area that has slipped through the cracks (so to speak) and nominate them for a wider (policy based) discussion. I seem to remember a similar "outcry" when somebody got around to applying policy based standards to Tolkien or wrestling articles.

As to your actual points: 1) You've failed to demonstrate how either point of WP:ENT is met (they haven't had roles in multiple Notable works and haven't, as far as I can see, made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment; something that would be demonstrated though sources saying so). 2) Does their youtube channel with 1.5M views and counting, not count? No, see WP:BIGNUMBER (and also maybe WP:YOUTUBER) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've added several references to the article, a few of which even use the subject's name in the headline. Even if this entry were redirected now, we'd just be kicking the can down the road and the article would be recreated in a few weeks. Almost every single contestant who has appeared on RuPaul's Drag Race has a standalone entry because being cast practically guarantees notability. Kori King has already appeared on two independently notable TV series and will almost certainly be on Whatcha Packin' and Hey Qween! in the next few weeks. Combine this with additional press to be released in the coming weeks and beyond. Let's avoid the unnecessary redirect and encourage article expansion/improvement. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Three of these articles are coverage of Kori King, as opposed to articles which make mention of her in their coverage of other topics (Boston drag and RuPaul's Drag Race). Two are local news from Boston; one is an interview. An interview cannot establish notability, and neither of the Boston pieces are in-depth at all. She may meet notability soon, so this article can be moved to draftspace until she does. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews can absolutely establish notability, per WP:Interviews#Notability. The question is whether the source is "marginal and only barely more than self published." Under this framework, the articles by Entertainment Weekly and Out should be considered valid supplementary material. Doughbo (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep the article per WP:ENT but remove the snippet about the local show. The citation points to an event posting, not an article, which is not notable. Furthermore, there is no point in listing local appearances as drag queens will headline dozens of these a year; it is not newsworthy. No need to make useless additions to appease a critic. Doughbo (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article does meet WP:GNG with numerous independent sources detailing her career as a drag queen prior and during her current appearance on RuPaul's Drag Race. The article cites, Entertainment Weekly, The Boston Globe, Out, and Queerty as independent sources that detail her performances in the Boston drag scene and as a reality television contestant. Every other contestant from Season 17 of RuPaul's Drag Race has a Wikipedia page, establishing a precedent that would make it unusual to delete this page. 70.30.55.29 (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are all these voters with no understanding of notability policy getting this "unusual" verbiage? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons listed here and my other statements on this page Flubberpuff (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree that this subject meets notability guidelines. There are plenty of sources. This seems to be a page that is in the process of being built. Once the page edits plateau, then we can talk about long-term notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravel for breakfast (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This AFD has been talked about on multiple subreddits ([3], [4]) Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to RuPaul's Drag Race season 17, as the only sources I'm seeing are about that season's cast being revealed or events during that season. If the page creator, user:Gravel for breakfast or anybody else wants this draftified until such sources appear, I would be open to that too. But we don't keep article's on the changes that sources will surely appear at some point in the future (see WP:CRYSTAL and WP:ATA#CRYSTAL). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see your point, but looking back at contestants from previous seasons at random, every one of them has a BLP wiki page. Many of those have less info than Kori King has now. See Joey_Jay_(drag_queen) for example. It seems out of place to me to zero in on this page for deletion. If this is the standard for deletion, we have a lot of work to do to go back and delete all the drag race contestant pages with this amount (or less) of information and sourcing.Gravel for breakfast (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is really not a policy-based argument, and if Joey Jay doesn’t meet GNG either, I’ll nominate his page for deletion, too. In fact, if you know he doesn’t, you should go ahead and do it yourself. That a topic area is bloated with articles for non-notable subjects (and I’m not saying RPDR is—but that’s the argument you’re making here) is neither remarkable nor reason to ignore or relax notability requirements. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Being cast on Rupaul's Drag Race essentially guarantees notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. As a multiple-emmy winning, internationally airing and supported television show with millions of fans per episode.
    The fact that you individually may not be entertained, does not take away from that. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Future notability, probably. But not yet. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And what precisely makes you believe that she is not yet notable based on this, when it has historically been more than sufficient for every single queen of every single previous season?
    She has a popular youtube channel with currently over 1.5M views.. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because time advances such that unrealized effects of present phenomena have not yet occurred. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What a beautiful series of words that do not in any way negate the fact that Kori King is currently a notorious figure for her popular online presence paired with her currently competing on a large-platform television show aired internationally. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You simply asserting that they are a notorious figure isn't actually what is required by either WP:GNG or WP:ENT, neither is being on a on a large-platform television show (I mean, do you honestly believe that we have articles on everybody who has competed on The Great British Bake Off or Survivor etc.). In fact, WP:BLP1E makes it quite clear that somebody notable for only one thing doesn't need a standalone article. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 20:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having a well sourced article about a notable contestant on a very popular TV show makes Wikipedia better. If people are looking up the Drag Race season, it makes sense that a popular entertainer from that show would have a BLP page. There is no problem to be fixed here. Everyone can move along. Gravel for breakfast (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are only noteworthy (according to the coverage in WP:RSs) for being on a season of a reality show, then they don't need a separate article as they are only notable for one event. I can assure you that our coverage of the vast majority very popular TV show[s] manages just fine without every single contestant (who are only covered for appearing on the show) having a separate article. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the thing -- the contestants aren't only on one season of one series. They are on multiple independently notable shows, so I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:03, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m very dubious about the idea that anyone on RPDR is automatically on multiple notable shows and thus meets ENT—Untucked is a supplement to the show, as is Whatcha Packin (which Kori has not ever appeared on). That’s a stretch of the criterion, which definitely doesn’t mean to presume notability of everyone who’s been on America’s Next Top Hatmaker, America’s Next Top Hatmaker: Behind the Scenes, and America’s Next Top Hatmaker: Extended Cut. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 02:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't recommend spending too much more time/energy trying to delete biographies for Drag Race contestants. Again, there's good reason almost all of the 220+ contestants across 17 seasons have entries. ---Another Believer (Talk) 04:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are very weird for specifically going after people from this show. This seems more like an agenda than a concern over “notability requirements” considering your post history. This is such a bizarre thing to do. 76.78.191.34 (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL on ABC results

List of NFL on ABC results (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)

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NLIST criteria. Let'srun (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST - No independent reliable sources on the topic. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kesse (musician)

Kesse (musician) (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 have Googled this artist thus confirming their existence. However, I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources that could be used to create a reasonably engaging encyclopaedia entry that doesn't contain hyperbolic language such as "he rose to fame"

The sources used in the page are all primary sources. Therefore, it would be impossible to cover this subject in an encyclopaedic tense without synthesis of the primary material.

Here's what I mean,

1. https://web.archive.org/web/20140903084109/http://omgghana.com/kesse-unleashes-the-ugly-truth-claiming-he-is-heading-to-the-bets-and-the-grammys/ - this is an interview and therefore primary. 2. https://www.modernghana.com/music/8861/3/.html - this is a report from a regional music competition and is therefore primary. 3. https://web.archive.org/web/20140823164509/http://www.myjoyonline.com/entertainment/2014/June-4th/i-am-getting-ready-to-marry-kesse.php - this is a press release and is therefore primary 4. https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?rev_t=20140527053606&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.vanguardngr.com%2Fphoto%2Fmtn-project-fame-season-three-2#federation=archive.wikiwix.com&tab=url this is a listings page and is therefore primary 5. https://www.modernghana.com/music/8861/3/.html this is a repeat source 6. This is a report from a time of an event and is therefore primary https://web.archive.org/web/20140904182407/http://www.modernghana.com/music/8861/3/.html 7. https://www.modernghana.com/music/17983/3/kesse-debuts-ugly-truth-album.html this is a routine press announcement about an upcoming album. Therefore, it is a primary source. 8. https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/135040-wizkid-wins-african-artiste-of-the-year-at-ghana-music-awards.html this is a primary source reporting on a competition that mentions the artist's name but it's not clear how it could translate into encyclopaedic content. 9. https://web.archive.org/web/20140314041448/http://www.ghanacelebrities.com/2012/04/15/full-list-of-winners-of-2012-vodafone-ghana-music-awards/ this is a list of award nominees that doesn't load. Again, this is a primary source and it's not clear how one could create engaging prose from it without significant synthesis. 10. https://web.archive.org/web/20140314041448/http://www.ghanacelebrities.com/2012/04/15/full-list-of-winners-of-2012-vodafone-ghana-music-awards/ this is a list of award winners which is great and all but how does one build an entire article completely from primary sources without significant synthesis.

Whether WP:MUSIC is present or not I just can't see how it's possible to create a suitably engaging article from these sources without synthesis of primary source material.

Can you see what I mean and do you understand why this is so important to me?

Can you see my point? 𝔓420°𝔓Holla 01:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC) Indefinitely blocked for disruption, UPE, use of LLM and suspected sock puppetry.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Paarijatham (2008 TV series)

Paarijatham (2008 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)

Cannot find significant coverage to show notability. There is one cited source on the page and looks like others have tried to find sources to no avail. CNMall41 (talk) 04:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of cable television NFL over-the-air affiliates

List of cable television NFL over-the-air affiliates (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:LISTN doesn't appear to be met here. The subject does not appear to have significant coverage as a grouping, with the sources provided either not being reliable (internet forums) or only covering one-time or single affiliates. Let'srun (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isobel Lang

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

No valid sources, fails WP:NBIO ProtobowlAddict uwu! (talk | contributions) 22:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Could not find sufficient secondary sources for notability. Employment history is captured already in lists on the related networks. Article includes unreferenced original research "becoming one of the better known faces of BBC Weather, in part due to her distinctive red hair". I would have considered pursuing {{db-person}} or WP:PROD. Matthew Yeager (talk) 06:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find social media (Facebook, LinkedIn), a few sentences in puff pieces, and nothing more. Checked newspapers but ... zilch. Lamona (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NFL's Greatest Games

NFL's Greatest Games (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)

While writing articles on some of the games listed here, I have been unable to verify almost any of the information contained herein. There appears to be no independent, reliable sources proving the general notability of this TV program. As such, I feel deletion is most appropriate. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 20 February 2025 (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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Banks

Clayton Banks (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)

Reverted on the AfC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Clayton_Banks on 5 December by 24eeWikiUser, and suspiciously reuploaded by another editor 2 days later into main Wikipedia space. Seems like an organized attempt to push the person onto Wikipedia. The sources provided did not allow to establish the person's notability. Cinder painter (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I can't !vote because I have an indirect conflict of interest. The subject and I have had 8 mutual connections on LinkedIn, including a very old mutual friend also on Facebook. I see some sources, but you all can evaluate them. Bearian (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish notability, as it may fail to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. In addition, the article has signs of being created to order by a bank. --Edit.pdf (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Edit.pdf, could you please provide diff's of the alleged COI, specifically for the signs of being created to order by a bank. When I look at the creator of the article, Adjoajo, I see a highly competent and productive good faith editor. Netherzone (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Delete checking every source in the article and then another 10+ searching I couldn't find anything that that was both independent and significant. The current article also suffers from significant WP:COPYVIO, if not delete then definitely draftify. If there is an article here it needs to be rewritten from scratch. Moritoriko (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moritoriko, I cleaned up the minor amount of copyvio found using Earwigs tool, so that issue is resolved (perhaps there was more when you looked, since you mention "significant", that had been cleaned up by the time I scanned it). If you have a moment, please review the citations mentioned below in my comment, these multiple sources provide in-depth, independent, secondary coverage in reliable - and relevant - sources. Netherzone (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think changing the order of a list is rewriting in your own words. I will take another look at it when I wake up but I could tell that "all things techie" was lifted straight from the source before I even looked at the source (which you had in your comment below, you read it right?). The key criterion I am struggling with for this page is "independent". It seems the only source for all these articles is the author talking to Banks, which is fine for adding information once notability is established, but we have to clear that step first. Moritoriko (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly meets WP:GNG based on this significant coverage in independent reliable sources that are already in the article: The Harlem Times, CBS News, and these additional sources found in WP:BEFORE search easily finds additional in-depth coverage: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and more. Netherzone (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I am remembering wrong, but I thought that interviews didn't qualify for notability, heavens knows I given plenty and I am not WP:GNG. Source [2] that you provide is one that I found but I would not say it is significant coverage of Banks. Moritoriko (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moritoriko, thanks for your question. Do you mean the People of Color in Tech citation by "Source [2]? If so, that source does not seem like an interview to me as it is written completely in the third person. And yes it does contain sigcov of him and his company Silicon Harlem, which is the subject of the entire piece. So even if it was based on an interview, POCT is a secondary source, not a primary source. See: WP:INTERVIEWS.
    You are correct, tho, that most interviews are considered primary sources, which generally do not contribute to notability - unless there is a substantial amount of editorial content contained within. Interviews can, however, be used to make straightforward statements of fact that can help build biographic content.
    Nevertheless he clearly meets the general notability guideline; WP:GNG criteria for notability. Netherzone (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant that POCT was the one independent source I found about him but I didn't think it was significant coverage about him. I would say it is significant coverage of Silicon Harlem though.
    Looking at WP:Interviews, I am really struggling to say that any of these interview pieces are independent/secondary. There doesn't seem to be any critical thought about Banks on the parts of the interviewer. On the other hand there are a number of different ones which don't seem to be paid advertisements which is a positive sign but I don't think that we can source any of the information about his life to a secondary source which is a bit troubling. Moritoriko (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources about the subject himself. Most of the cited sources are either interviews, which are not reliable sources by any means, or focus more on something else, or are not reliable (paid, etc). In general the sources do not demonstrate sufficient, in-depth, and independent coverage of Banks as a biographical subject. Often, the sources are full of phrases like: Banks explained… Banks emphasized --2001:A61:35C4:7801:9940:EE4:AC4F:4DFD (talk) 09:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Of the sources that Netherzone identified as WP:GNG-qualifying coverage, the Harlem World, PoliticsNY, ones are pure WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interviews. The POCIT story is WP:SIGCOV of Silicon Harlem, not Banks. The Harlem Times, CBS New York and LA Sentinel sources are all clearly based solely on an WP:INTERVIEW with Banks and do not demonstrate the depth of reporting that allow such a profile to be considered a secondary source. I don't see a pass on GNG or any other applicable guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2025 (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.

British Comedy Guide

British Comedy Guide (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)

Website lacks notability; significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Refs provided are either from subject's own coverage or mere mentions (related to comments made on BCG podcasts) – no significant coverage *about* the website from reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing any reference books or media that establish significant coverage. Unless and until Mushy Yank provides citations and quotations that demonstrate that significant coverage exists, their vote should be disregarded. Awards do not establish notability, because notability is not transitive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Notability (web) Some of the awards are mentioned on the page. With references. And a simple Gbooks click allows to verify that what I wrote is true. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 09:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Being nominated for an award is not sufficient for meeting WP: NWEB. It also isn't clear to me that a Bronze-level award establishes notability. Also, please remember that Google Books may show different results for different users. I'm not seeing any significant coverage in my search. I promise I'm not trying to be pedantic; I legitimately am unable to find any sources on Google Books that establish significant coverage. Please show us the sources you've found. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The podcasts that won the minor awards are dubiously notable themselves with limited independent coverage, let alone the website that hosts them. It's even unclear to me if this website even produced these podcasts or just syndicates them. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria, which says:

    Keeping in mind that all articles must conform with the policy on verifiability to reliable sources, and that non-independent and self-published sources alone are not sufficient to establish notability; web-specific content may be notable based on meeting one of the following criteria:

    • The content has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site or trivial coverage, such as a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, or the content descriptions in directories or online stores.
    Sources
    1. "The arts online: Seeing the funny side". The Times. 2007-01-13. Archived from the original on 2025-02-24. Retrieved 2025-02-24.

      The article provides 101 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Is the British sitcom on the slide or on the up? Whatever its condition, the many users of the British Sitcom Guide, launched in August 2003, can be relied upon for an opinion. However, there is no doubting the authority behind this guide to more than 200 British sitcoms, which aims “to provide a comprehensive guide to every UK sitcom ever made”. Its messageboard is a forum for ferocious debate over shows such as Are You Being Served? with John Inman (above) — apparently particularly loved in the US. News competitions and shop sections will sate the most slavish devotee’s needs."

    2. Dee, Johnny (2005-04-30). "The Guardian: The Guide: Preview. Internet: * The British Sitcom Guide". The Guardian. ProQuest 246286725. Archived from the original on 2025-02-24. Retrieved 2025-02-24.

      The review provides 103 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "There are some foolish folk who believe the best British TV revolves around women in corsets arranging plates of fondant fancies but one glance at this exhaustive website will inform them otherwise - the true heart of UK creativity is the humble sitcom. From Absolutely Fabulous to Yus My Dear every situation comedy ever gets its own page with episode guides, links and news - including the welcome information that Max & Paddy is returning for a second series. There's a good section on sitcoms in production - most star Rob Brydon - while gossip fans can feed their habit by signing up to a weekly newsletter."

    3. "Web Life". Birmingham Post. 2007-08-21. ProQuest 324189489. Archived from the original on 2025-02-24. Retrieved 2025-02-24.

      The article provides 57 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "www.sitcom.co.uk is of the opinion that the best British TV takes the form of the humble sitcom. The site features information on more than 200 homegrown series, with many more added to its annuls each month. From Absolutely Fabulous to Max and Paddy every sitcom ever made has its own page with episode guides, links and news."

    4. Hall, Julian (2006). The Rough Guide to British Cult Comedy. New York: Rough Guides. p. 253. ISBN 978-1-84353-618-5. Retrieved 2025-02-24 – via Google Books.

      The book provides 43 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "www.sitcom.co.uk: This guide to British sitcoms is reasonably comprehensive – it has over 800 sitcoms in its index – and is a useful resource for potential sitcom writers, with a good area devoted to the craft, complete with tips, courses and reviews of relevant books."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow British Comedy Guide (formerly known as British Sitcom Guide) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for finding these sources, but I'm not sure if this establishes notability. These each look like "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site", which would not qualify for establishing notability under WP: NWEB. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those summaries are most certainly trivial mentions of the subject, not the significant coverage needed to establish notability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:41, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

High Above

High Above (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. Article is a summary of a book about SES (company) which was written by(/for) SES. I cannot find sources to show that this book is notable, and I do not see that it meets any of the other criteria in WP:NBOOK. The only coverage I have found besides that from SES itself is in the form of two reviews (both already referenced in the article). One is a very short review from a personal blog [11], and the other is a TechRadar article [12] which appeared in the Wotsat column, to which the authors of the book were contributors ("Written by industry-leading journalists and Wotsat contributors [...]"). Pink Bee (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even Higher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beyond Frontiers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pink Bee (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't find anything either - I'm debating between a redirect to the Astra page or a delete. SES and its Astra satellites seem to be pretty well known enough that Springer decided to hire people to write about them, however they're not so well known that I would anticipate someone really seeking this book out on Wikipedia. In other words, redirects are cheap, but if it's not something people would plausibly search for, then there's no point in having it. I'm leaning towards a delete for these. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how many people would be searching for the books, but of the three I think Beyond Frontiers is more worthy of a redirect than the others because it appears to (have) be(en) an SES motto (at one point): Press release Design company portfolio SES video. They own a trademark for it. I don't really think anyone would be searching for that either, but it did come up more than any of the three books when I was looking for sources. Pink Bee (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After a cursory search of coverage, it is pretty clear this book is extremely niche and has very, very little secondary coverage. There is one source that gives the book a mention [13] but that is essentially it. Any reviews of the book might help in establishing notability but otherwise essentially all of the article's sources are primary or local, which don't factor into its notability. It lacks the widespread and significant secondary coverage required for notability.  GuardianH  00:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of NASCAR on ESPN broadcasters

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

Article could fail WP:NLIST, and contexts in this article already exists in NASCAR on ESPN#Announcers. MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snug and Cozi

Snug and Cozi (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 have been a non-notable short-run TV show with absolutely zero coverage outside listing sites and the creator's own web-page Salimfadhley (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Lewisohn, Mark (1998). Radio Times Guide to TV Comedy. London: BBC Worldwide. p. 619. ISBN 0-563-36977-9. Retrieved 2024-07-14 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "Snug And Cozi UK - ITV (SCOTTISH) • CHILDREN'S SITCOM 13 x 10 mins • colour Series One (6) 1 Nov-6 Dec 1996 • Fri 4pm Series Two (7) 19 Aug-2 Oct 1997 • Tue then Thu mostly 4.05pm MAIN CAST Snug Cozi Emily Richard Vobes .... Nigel Cooner • Sarah Montgomery CREDITS writer Richard Vobes • executive producer Elizabeth Partyka • directors/producers Martyn Day (series 1), Haldane Duncan (series 2)"

      The book notes: "Thirteen doses of virtually dialogue-free slapstick comedy for children, depicting the misadventures of two bald aliens, Snug and Cozi, whose home planet, Squadge, is located one hundred million light years distant. Although inexperienced at flying, the pair borrow a rocket and blast off into the blackness, but after encountering a storm of asteroids they crash land on Earth. Here they are befriended by Emily, an 11-year-old schoolgirl, and she introduces them to human customs. In true alien style, of course, Snug and Cozi find it awfully hard to adapt, causing havoc at every turn in an almost identical manner to Laurel and Hardy, the true masters of the genre from 60 years earlier. (Snug is like Laurel; the larger one, Cozi, replicates Hardy's mannerisms.) Richard Vobes and Nigel Cooper, who played Snug and Cozi, are London-based children's entertainers. Note. The second series, announced as comprising ten episodes, stopped at seven."

    2. "TV triumph for pair's space tale". Lancing Herald. 1996-11-01. Retrieved 2025-02-24 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "Look out for a new children's television series called Snug and Cozi, which starts today (Friday) on ITV at 4pm. It is the brainchild of local actors Richard Vobes and Nigel Cooper, who live in Worthing. They made a pilot film of the programme and sold the concept to Scottish Television. This summer, Richard and Nigel were jet-setting between Worthing and Glasgow, filming six episodes of their new series, which follows the adventures of two crazy space travellers who crash-land on planet Earth. It's a slapstick comedy in the vein of Laurel and Hardy, aimed at children between the ages of four and nine. Snug and Cozi are also aiming their pop record, Pink Heads, will make it into the charts. They will also make a guest appearance on Wow, the latest children's Saturday morning show on ITV tomorrow (Saturday)."

    3. "Snug & Cozi in town". Mid Sussex Times. 1996-11-07. Retrieved 2025-02-24 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "TV stars of the future, Snug and Cozi, will be touching down in Burgess Hill when they appear at the town's special 'Christmas Day' celebrations. The intergalactic comedy double act have already been dubbed 'Laurel and Hardy in spacesuits' and their live action children's programme is aired every Friday at 4pm on Children's ITV. Their slapstick routine roadshow hits planet Earth at the bandstand at the Martlets shopping centre between 2–5pm on December 7."

    4. Less significant coverage:
      1. Calder, Colin (1997-02-26). "STV Steam Ahead Thanks to the Singing Kettle - Record pounds 60M profits". Daily Record. Archived from the original on 2024-07-14. Retrieved 2024-07-14.

        The article notes: "Apart from The Singing Kettle News - based in a newsroom - cartoons such as Hot Rod Dogs, Blobs and Snug and Cozi have all been big hits."

      2. Reguly, Eric (1997-02-26). "Caledonian deal helps Scottish TV to a high". The Times. Archived from the original on 2024-07-14. Retrieved 2024-07-14.

        The article notes: "A string of new programme commissions, ranging from McCallum to Snug and Cozi, boosted Scottish Television's operating profits from production by 43 per cent, to Pounds 3.3 million, their highest ever."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Snug and Cozi to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toby the Tram Engine

Toby the Tram Engine (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)

Dubious stand-alone WP:GNG (my BEFORE also failed to find anything except a passing mention here and there). No reception or analysis, the only non-plot content is found the the "Prototype and backstory" but it seems to be cobbled from WP:SIGCOV-failing mentions, mostly by the show's creator; and it is padded by general history of the real world J70 tram engine (aka GER Class C53). Per ATD I recommend redirecting this to List of characters in The Railway Series; perhaps with a merge of few relevant sentences from the non-plot section. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notability and popularity of this article is attested by the large number of pages linking to it (see 'What links here'). Redirecting to List of characters in The Railway Series would necessarily obliterate virtually all of the content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mean as custard (talk • contribs) 06:52, February 19, 2025 (UTC)
I am afraid this argument, a variation of WP:GOOGLEHITS (but on Wikipedia) is not going to get much traction - our standards are much higher than 10-15 years ago where such arguments were considered valid. See WP:ITSPOPULAR. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This character is perhaps the most recognizable in the series after Thomas. Use of primary references, while raising eyebrows, doesn't necessitate deletion. I do agree with you that this page could use a cleanup though to remove some of the fluff. Kylemahar902 (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Hossain (journalist)

Elias Hossain (journalist) (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)

Vanity spam, sourced to nonsense and non RS - see previous deletions as well. I'll outline more when I have access to a computer but this has been a long term spam project in terms of attempts to get an article. In any case, the subject doesn't meet even the bare requirements for notability. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 21:18, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak keep: Recognize I'm coming here before the AFD nomination is completely filled out, but some of the sources seem to have reliable coverage:
The only other thing he appears notable for is a bunch of announcements saying he was arrested, among which one of the better ones is:
Some followup coverage of which is here:
Not sure how reliable this source is, although it exists:
This source appears to just summarize a video he made:
And this one summarizes a social media post after giving a little information on him.
Didn't search for any more, but based on what's there, it's kinda debatable -- there is 1 good source, and a bunch of not-great not-super-thorough sources covering him getting criminally charged, which might be questioned under WP:NOTNEWS. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oblivy brought up it meets WP:BASIC and I read the article again -- it's definitely written in a promotional way and has tone issues, but (importantly) given the multiple-paragraph summary of his work in the one good source and the apparent continuing coverage in various sources of his interactions with various legal systems it seems worth a keep, if it needs a bit of a rewrite. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sourcing seems to be sufficient for general notability. How the article is written isn't relevant - AfD isn't cleanup. Cortador (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking significant coverage, with extremely poor sourcing. Most egregious are the basic reporting errors. He's not a journalist, he's a content creator. There's no such thing as "Queens Criminal Court": it's Kew Gardens criminal courthouse, or Queens County, Criminal Term, Supreme Court.[4] Those are just two examples of basic BLP errors riddled throughout. See WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    He is described as a "former crime reporter" and someone who "reports" and generates "reporting". The Dhaka post uses the term সাংবাদিক which Google translate translates as "journalist". Financial Express calls him a "former journalist". So what exactly is your basis for saying he's not a journalist? Because he's not employed by legacy media? Do we disregard what secondary sources say because we choose to apply a more confined definition to journalist?
    Regarding the term "Queens Criminal Court" that's the term used by the Financial Express. The New York State court website uses that term. And if it's really an error fixing mistakes is easy. Oblivy (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I don't think he meets WP:NJOURNALIST but he does meet WP:NBASIC. The tone of the first half of the page is not right, and some of the sourcing is poor (like everything under Early Life), but he has plenty of reputable outlets writing about him and nobody has seriously disputed that. I do think there's some argument that what this guy is getting press coverage for seems to be youtube vids about a murder in Bangladesh, and something about famous people in New York[15] and some alleged extortion[16] but I guess he'd say he's being persecuted. I'd like to see an RS citation about his prior career but I don't think that's fatal to the AfD.Oblivy (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jahanzeb Khan

Jahanzeb Khan (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)

There are articles like this which come with bylines like "web desk" but these are not enough to pass WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since both keep !votes are "weak".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 10:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete : Did not find any significant coverage.Gauravs 51 (talk)
  • Delete. 2 sources on the page and both are poor with one just showing a picture of the subject with another actress and the second is a video of the teleplay. No significant coverage on the career of the subject. No significant coverage on the roles the subject played and whether any of them were significant roles. No secondary independent reliable sources on the page. Fails to meet WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmeen Manzoor

Jasmeen Manzoor (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)

Coverage is mostly based on routine mentions or from affiliated organizations (like joining BOL News results in brief coverage in BOL News itself ([17])) Lacks direct and in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Bakhsh

Ayesha Bakhsh (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)

Brief mentions are not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV requirements. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Cochran (Survivor contestant)

AfDs for this article:
John Cochran (Survivor contestant) (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)

Reading the prior nomination on him, the "keep" votes were based on (presumed notability of) other existing Survivor winners (until recent years of AFD noms on certain winners).

This discussion isn't about the article quality. Rather it's about this person's general notability and any other sort of (applicable) notability thereof. He might or might not, but most of the sources used significantly covered him as the winner of Survivor: Caramoan, especially one EW article of winners list and a university's article about alumni and a CBS magazine article.

A recap article by EW details his cameo appearance in Survivor: Game Changers, but then that's just a recap article, despite the magazine being highly reputable. (BTW, the author of the article has expressed his opinions in other articles.)

I'm kinda cautious about using an ABA Journal article to verify his notability. The source was probably promoting his then-upcoming interview, which is a primary source, one of which to never use to verify this person's notability per GNG. (Will describe some other sources soon.)

I don't wanna argue with others back and forth similar to the other AFD discussion. Nonetheless, I fear similar arguments made in that discussion would be inevitable.

As said in that discussion, if WP:BLP1E isn't applicable to you, then how about WP:BIO1E instead, WP:NBASIC, WP:PAGEDECIDE, and/or WP:BIOSPECIAL? Furthermore, WP:BLP should also apply. Indeed, I'm not confident (yet) about his notability for his Survivor: South Pacific gameplay and its compliance with the BLP policy itself.

Sure, his roles in Survivor have been significant, but his amount of major roles IMO hasn't come close to meeting WP:NACTOR. Well, he's been a post-Survivor television writer, but whether he meets WP:NAUTHOR isn't the main issue. Rather WP:NBASIC and WP:BIOSPECIAL should supersede his (non-)compliance with WP:NAUTHOR. George Ho (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to find reliable sources verifying his (general) notability, but I can't use this questionnaire answered by the article subject himself. Entertainment Now cites IMDB, which is an unreliable (user-generated) source. I'm uncertain whether to use this profile page either. I can say the same about this source, which is citing (if not reporting) the same EW questionnaire that I wouldn't use.

Almost forgot: The page should be redirect to his winning season, Survivor: Caramoan. George Ho (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per my messages below — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t (talk • contribs) 15:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thowing every magic word in a attepmt to get pages you demonstrate a WP:IDONTLIKE is counter productive Wwew345t (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wwew345t, this discussion is not about George Ho, but about the article. Feel free to take your concerns to his talk page, but following him around AfD is not productive. I'll also note your comment on this talk page. win8x (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
apologies i missread the reporting system I thought I had to bring my concerns ti the page I feel the problems are occurring Wwew345t (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless my vote is still KEEP as there are secondary sources proving notability Wwew345t (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
where should I put my concerns? Wwew345t (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also voted keep based on WP:NACTOR there are plenty secondary sources that establish his notability the primary sources are there to complement the artcile furthmore he doesnt meet all 3 critiera for BLP1E Wwew345t (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://patch.com/virginia/oakton/is-this-the-end-for-cochran https://www.nydailynews.com/2011/11/24/survivor-season-23-recap-coachs-scheming-side-shines-through-keith-and-whitney-couple-up-cochran-is- seasons-worst-storyteller/ https://www.masslive.com/television/2011/11/survivor_cochran_kicks_a_littl.html all of these are secondary sources covering his south Pacific appearance clearly demonstrating notability for more then one Survivor appearance also the notion that "it's a reliable source but the author has opinions" is redundant the debate is to establish sig cov in relablie secondary sources which the sources do just because the author has opinions (which is kinda the point when your covering entertainment articles lol) doesn't make a reliable source unreliable Wwew345t (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Patch article was an opinion piece by an ordinary citizen (who is a Patch member). The NY Daily News article is a recap of an episode. So is the one by The Republican (MassLive). Recaps are (summarization of) primary sources, which are discounted by GNG, so I gotta treat those recaps as such. I'm unsure how and why you reply too much and argue with me and others back and forth. George Ho (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC); edited, 00:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources by definition get their info from a primary source hence where they are called secondary sources the fact thats its a summarization of a primary sources makes it a secondary source Wwew345t (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a primariy source unless its an interview of someone with first hand knowledge of the event in question a receap of what happned in a tv show doesnt qualfiy as that Wwew345t (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this page and that page about what a secondary source is, well.... CBS recaps episodes... Actually, used to, but I consider CBS somewhat a primary source. (Trying to find other sources explicitly categorizing recaps as either primary or secondary sources.) George Ho (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
according to wikipedias definition of secondary sources stuff that is made after the fact with hindsight are considered secondary sources and the recaps are covering the events of episodes that had happened a couple days prior so by a very loose definition I believe they are secondary especially since no one is actually interviewed in said re caps Wwew345t (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Itd be a lot easier to determine if they listed who wrote the recap unfortunately they dont so it could be anyone that works for cbs regardless of wether or not they had anything to do with Survivor Wwew345t (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's "a very loose definition" in the sense that "made of strawberries" is a very loose definition of a motor vehicle. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well sure you could make a case for the CBS pages being primarys but there are still the EW sources Wwew345t (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Andreeva, Nellie (2015-12-11). "CBS Developing Comedy From 'Survivor' Winner John Cochran & Greg Garcia". Deadline Hollywood. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The article notes: "John Cochran’s dream Hollywood run continues. After winning Survivor: Caramoan, he landed a comedy writer job on the CBS series The Millers. And now the 28-year-old Harvard Law graduate is getting a shot at creating his own show with the help of his mentor, The Millers creator Greg Garcia. ... Cochran co-executive produces with Amigos de Garcia’s Alix Jaffe. ... Cochran had been a huge Survivor fan since the reality series’ first season. He handed out Survivor newsletters during high school, wore a Survivor-style buff on his arm and at Harvard Law, he won the Dean’s Scholar Prize for writing an essay about the Survivor jury system as compared to the one employed by American courts."

    2. Otterson, Joe (2017-11-29). "CBS Developing Multi-Cam Legal Comedy From 'Survivor' Winner and Dr. Phil's Stage 29 Productions (Exclusive)". Variety. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The article notes: "CBS is developing a multi-cam legal sitcom that hails from “Survivor” winner John Cochran and former “Modern Family” writer Dan O’Shannon, Variety has learned exclusively. ... Cochran appeared on the 23rd season of “Survivor,” finishing in 8th place. He returned for the 26th season, winning the season and the $1 million prize. Following a post-show interview with host Jeff Probst, Cochran revealed his desire to be a comedy writer. He was subsequently contacted by Greg Garcia who offered him a job on the writing staff for the CBS series “The Millers.” Cochran also developed “Bob’s Your Uncle,” a comedy pilot for CBS and CBS Studios with Garcia executive producing. He has also written for the CBS comedy “Kevin Can Wait.”"

    3. Nordyke, Kimberly (2013-05-23). "'Survivor: Caramoan' Winner John Cochran Lands CBS Writing Gig". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The article notes: "Survivor champion John Cochran has followed through on his pledge to become a writer in a big way. ... Cochran, who studied law at Harvard, first revealed his plans to forgo becoming a lawyer and instead pursue writing during Survivor’s live reunion show, which aired May 12."

    4. Ross, Dalton (2021-02-02). "Survivor Quarantine Questionnaire: John Cochran explains why he will not play again". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The article notes: "John Cochran did not stand a chance in hell of winning Survivor: Caramoan, and I told him exactly that right before the game began. After all, who in their right mind would want to align with the guy after he betrayed his entire alliance by refusing to go to rocks in the recently aired Survivor: South Pacific, ensuring not only their destruction but his own. So, naturally, after being told there was no point in even going out and playing, not only did Cochran go and win Caramoan, but he did so in epic fashion—completing a perfect game with zero votes cast against him all season while also receiving every single jury vote for the win."

    5. Jackman, Tom (2013). "Oakton's John Cochran wins 'Survivor' show, and $1 million". The Washington Post. ProQuest 1353218261.

      The article notes: "In Oakton, John Cochran was watching from the start, as a 13-year-old in 2000, and he calls himself a show superfan. Now, he is a part of Survivor history. Cochran, 26, won the 26th season of the show (there are two per year) in a live ceremony announcing the winner in Los Angeles last week. The episodes were filmed last year on Caramoan in the Philippines, where Cochran had to eat nasty things and do all the other physical and mental torture tests required of the contestants. He collects $1 million for his troubles. Cochran also competed in season 24 in 2011 but did not win."

    6. Wong, Tony (2013-08-16). "Survivor winner John Cochran goes from Harvard to Hollywood". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The article notes: "It’s not hard to pick Harvard law graduate John Cochran out of this Louboutin-heeled crowd. He has played the role of fish out of water all his life. On Survivor, he used that to spectacular effect, winning a million dollars in May in a script seemingly lifted from Revenge of the Nerds. ... Some people may be surprised to learn that the ultimate outsider is now part of the Hollywood dream factory, closer to cool kid status as a writer on The Millers, a new CBS sitcom ... But Cochran proved to the world that the most important muscle is the brain. (Naturally, he won the Dean’s Scholar prize at Harvard for his essay on the quirks of Survivor’s jury system.)"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow John Cochran to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources #1 and #2 seem to be more about (promoting and verifying notability of) the then-upcoming sitcom than about the person himself, IMO, despite those article happiness. (Per Cunard's reply below and WP:SIGCOV. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Source #3 significantly covers him as the Caramoan winner. I admire your quoting the excerpt about his educational life, but the source mentions it like a summarization of his cover letter or something like that and mentions post-Survivor writing career like a mere resume in prose.
I already explained why I discounted source #4 as a primary source, didn't I?
Source #5 still does the same thing as source #3. Source #6 doesn't convince me why his Harvard background (and essays)... or his career writing for short-lived series and a Star Trek animated series is worth visualizing and teaching readers about him. Rather it still verifies his notability as a Survivor winner. George Ho (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the sources being more about "the then-upcoming sitcom than about the person himself", Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." These sources each provide significant coverage about John Cochran. The 2015 article in Deadline Hollywood and the 2017 article in Variety are in reputable publications. They are not promotional sources. They are independent reliable sources. The third source provides significant biographical coverage about him in The Hollywood Reporter, another reputable source. The fourth source contains non-interview content so is not merely a primary source. The author provides commentary and analysis about what the subject did on the show. The fifth and sixth sources provide further biographical background about the subject.

The sources were published in 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2021 and cover both his appearances on Survivor: South Pacific and Survivor: Caramoan and his writing career on other shows like The Millers and Kevin Can Wait. There is enough sustained coverage about the subject to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and to demonstrate that the subject does not fall under WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. WP:BLP1E says "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." The sources show that Cochran is not being covered only in the context of a single event. Cunard (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, those publications are highly reputable. Well, I'm trying to find a policy or guideline that can help me refute your argument about reliability of sources being sufficient, but no such luck yet.
Regarding the sources being more about "the then-upcoming sitcom than about the person himself", Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." These sources each provide significant coverage about John Cochran. Struck my comments about sources #1 and #2. Still, I dunno whether they verify his notability as a writer as much as his post-Survivor activities themselves, IMO. But I'm not gonna argue further about those sources.
The fourth source contains non-interview content so is not merely a primary source. The author provides commentary and analysis about what the subject did on the show. Well, every questionnaire that Dalton Ross wrote does, but that even non-notable contestants were given similar questionnaires, like Gabon winner (AFD) and Island of the Idols winner (AFD).
The fifth and sixth sources provide further biographical background about the subject. Not all articles, if not "not everything", should be included/preserved in the project, ya know? To put this another way, even so, I can't help wonder whether his pre-Survivor background should suffice to verify his notability. Even non-notable contestants have their own backgrounds.
Oh crap, I'm not supposed to compare too much, am I? George Ho (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first two sources about his writing career and the extensive coverage in reliable sources about John Cochran's appearances on Survivor are enough for him to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Regarding "every questionnaire that Dalton Ross wrote does, but that even non-notable contestants were given similar questionnaires", that does not exclude the source from contributing to Cochran's notability under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". The Entertainment Weekly is an independent reputable source and Dalton Ross is a reputable journalist. His analysis and commentary about John Cochran contribute to demonstrating notability. Dalton Ross's coverage about the other contestants gets those contestants closer to passing the notability guideline but may not be enough to establish notability if there are not other sources that show those contestants do not fall under WP:BLP1E. Cunard (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced by Cunard's arguments and by the sources identified. Thanks. Therefore I would suggest to Keep this. -Mushy Yank. 15:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curious and Unusual Deaths

Curious and Unusual Deaths (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)

Completely unsourced article about a television show. As always, television shows are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on third-party media coverage about them, but this cites absolutely no such coverage whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Gorman, Brian (2010-03-10). "People who met their ends with a twist". Toronto Star. Zap2it. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Curious and Unusual Deaths—which moves to Discovery Channel for its second season Friday, March 16, after a run on sister channel Discovery World—dramatizes offbeat ways people have met their demises over the years. The stories involve everything from a fisherman buried in sand to a gust of wind carrying a kite flyer into the air and a mechanical breakdown causing a man to be smothered in his sleep. Every episode tells three stories of people who came to bad ends in unlikely ways. And after watching it for a while, you might get the creeping sensation that danger lurks everywhere. ... The idea for the show came from a strange little series of books that Miazga's producing partner discovered in the Monkey's Paw bookstore on Dundas St."

    2. Genzlinger, Neil (2012-02-17). "Television Review: 'Curious & Unusual Deaths'. Spoiler Alert: You're Going to Die at the End". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The article notes: "That was before I watched “Curious & Unusual Deaths,” a series that has its premiere Friday on Discovery Fit & Health. ... The salesman was struck down in midpitch on a cloudless Florida day. By the end of the segment we know that the phrase “bolt from the blue” isn’t just an expression, and that a Bible is apparently no protection against random death. The premiere also explores the departures of a scientist who worked on the Manhattan Project and a not-very-bright lawyer who worked on the 24th floor of a glass tower in Toronto. As if that weren’t enough for the easily unsettled, the show sprinkles each episode with factoids related to the deaths examined, just rolling them out there without explanation."

    3. Moye, David (2012-02-16). "Death By Lava Lamp? New TV Show, 'Curious And Unusual Deaths,' Explains How It's Possible (Video)". HuffPost. Archived from the original on 2023-03-23. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The article notes: "A new series, "Curious And Unusual Deaths," which debuts February 17 on Discovery Fit & Health, attempts to explain the science behind these bizarre deaths with the help of experts and reenactments. The first episode deals with the strange death of Aidan Bray, a resident of Kent, Wash., who died in 2004 at the age of 24 because of an exploding lava lamp that left him covered in blue waxy goo with glass shards embedded in his heart. ... As for the reenactment of the lava lamp death, cleaning up the mess of the blue goo was not something anyone on the set was dying to do. ... Although the deaths featured on the series are strange, unusual and weird, Lamport hopes that audience members don't watch the show from a condescending "what an idiot" vantage point."

    4. Stone, Suzanne R. (2011-10-23). "Ecologist to appear on episode of 'Curious and Unusual Deaths' on Discovery Channel". Aiken Standard. EBSCOhost 2W61808938355.

      The article noets: "The Savannah River Ecology Lab has shared its expertise with the Discovery Channel for an upcoming episode of its show "Curious and Unusual Deaths."SREL's outreach program head and University of Georgia professor emeritus Whit Gibbons traveled to Toronto for two days in late September to tape an interview for the program. The episode will focus on a decades-old incident in West Virginia, in which eight campers died after drinking from a keg of beer which proved to have a copperhead snake inside. ... "Curious and Unusual Deaths," a part of Discovery's lineup since 2009, airs on Discovery Channel Canada."

    5. Pavey, Rob (2011-10-23). "Youngsters Get Head-Start on Whitetails". The Augusta Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The article notes: "A local scientist who is also one of the nation's top authorities on snakes will be on the Discovery Channel show called Curious and Unusual Deaths. Whit Gibbons, ecologist emeritus and head of Savannah River Ecology Lab's outreach program, was invited to provide commentary about copperheads and snake venom for the show, which delved into a decades-old mystery involving the death of eight West Virginia men. The show explores the bizarre and unusual, and brings in experts in various professions to comment on odd or even unexplained deaths that have occurred. This episode will air in spring 2012."

    6. Dugdale, John; Stewart, Helen; Dempster, Sarah (2010-08-01). "Choice". The Sunday Times. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The review notes: "Come die with me Curious And Unusual Deaths (Bio, 8pm) Using elaborate reconstructions to explore bizarre demises - Bible salesmen struck by bolts of dry lightning, scientists frazzled by miniature nuclear explosions, a businessman caught out by a fragile pane of glass - this new series's opening episode focuses on three deaths that occurred in the workplace. What follows is a surprisingly subdued affair, with sober scientific explanations."

    7. Masterson, Lawrie (2010-05-30). "Best of Foxtel - What not to miss". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.

      The review gives two stars and notes: "Macabre but fascinating, this series looks at deaths with that "what the . . .?" factor. These are some of the strangest passings recorded -- from a Bible salesman struck by lightning under a cloudless sky to the pet lover who fell into a cat bowl to a French tailor who tested an experimental glider off the Eiffel Tower."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Curious and Unusual Deaths to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the source eval by Cunard?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Kloor

Harry Kloor (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)

Reads a lot like a resume, tangentially mentioned in a few RS. Article may have been made for payment. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Live and learn. Here's what happened, and a good learning curve on this one. The article was created in 2008. It wasn't until 2022 that it was tagged for possible paid editing. With a gap of 14 years, how would anyone know it was paid editing? You see, when articles get tagged for anything, and without any backup proof, a tag is just a tag unless there is some proof. — Maile (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow me, please, to disagree with your observation about the importance of the length of time, i.e. "With a gap of 14 years, how would anyone know it was paid editing?" Well, information does not necessarily appear quickly. We might learn an article was made by a paid editor, or some other pertinent information, a considerable length of time after the article's creation, something for which I believe no examples need be given. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject despite the avalanche of citations, the supporting material does not stand up to close scrutiny. Scalpel, please.
Forensics: We can all agree that our subject is the first to obtain a double doctorate, per All the News That's Fit to Print, and by some obscure Russian website, for good measure - though, we must discard the dead links about that double doctorate stuff, such as this Arizona roadkill.
What else do we have? We have listings on a general theme, in which our subject is mentioned, such as this list of alumni, or routine listings of events, e.g. of speaking appearances, such as this; plus, news items that are similarly about something else and not of our subject, e.g. this report about an upcoming movie, whose screenplay is written by Kloor (mentioned once), or this one about a NASA project where our subject is listed as "workshop attendee", or a Captain's Log entry on a "Star Trek interactive science exhibit" where our subject is name dropped once, and so on. Anything else trawled up belongs to the aforepresented categories.
The strong aroma of vanity, whether intentional or not, is not a problem. After all, anyone can see there is no need for two photo-portraits or that we do not get year of birth. Nor is the fact that a major curator of the text is a kamikaze account. The problem is that we do not have enough sources. And arguments to the tune "Oh, he's obviously notable" do not wash. -The Gnome (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jolyon Jenkins

Jolyon Jenkins (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:DRAFTOBJECT prevents me from returning this to draft unilaterally. I am unsure that would be my preferred action now it is in mainspace. Jenkins is presented as a good but WP:ROTM journalist doing his job. Many, most, of the references are his work, but they are not reviews of him nor his work, thus they provide no verification of any putative notability. WP:V is a key tenet of Wikipedia and is not satisfied. As presented and referenced I cannot see a pass of WP:BIO. A WP:HEY outcome would be acceptable. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has been substantially rewritten to clearly demonstrate the subject's notability through multiple independent sources. It now includes national press reviews from The Guardian, The Sunday Times, The Independent, and Radio Times, industry-recognized awards such as the One World Broadcast Trust Award and the Sony Radio Award, and evidence of significant contributions to public debate, including testimony before the House of Lords Select Committee on data protection. Given these factors, the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for journalists and media figures Frobisher2021 (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see this as an opinion that this be kept, and not draftified.
I am slightly saddened about this. Of the references that I can access, two only point to an award, which might confer notability. The others are simple evidence of Jenkins doing his job, which cannot verify notability. One is a programme listing, which shows that he has a programme, and another does not mention him. I have not changed my view, nor my willingness to accept a request to return this to draft as an outcome of this discussion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some citations are intended to verify that Jenkins produced or presented the programmes mentioned. In such cases, a programme listing is a valid source, as it confirms authorship and broadcast history. If there is a specific citation where Jenkins is not mentioned, I would appreciate clarification so it can be corrected.
Regarding notability, multiple citations go beyond listings and are national press reviews from The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, and Radio Times. The consistent critical acclaim over decades from respected critics (e.g., Gillian Reynolds provides strong evidence of notability, as it is not just passing praise, but exemplary recognition, going beyond “run of the mill”. If more evidence of this is required, it can be provided.
Additionally, Jenkins was Deputy Editor of the New Statesman, a major political magazine. His work has been frequently cited in peer-reviewed academic research and journalism studies, including publications like the British Journalism Review, Index on Censorship, and the scholarly book Investigating Corporate Corruption (Taylor & Francis). These citations further demonstrate his impact on journalism and public discourse. A section on this could be added.
Regarding awards, while only two currently have citations, further research is likely to provide more. The fact that industry-recognized awards cannot so far be backed up by citation in itself is not a reason for deletion, especially given the additional press and academic recognition.
Finally, if the objection is based on access to citations, Wikipedia's verifiability policy explicitly allows print sources, even if they are not personally accessible to all editors. Many of these sources are accessible through newspaper archives (e.g., Newspapers.com, The British Library), and all are fully formatted with author, title, and date, allowing verification through standard research methods. Frobisher2021 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I left this for this long in case the creator would agree to draftify, but that is not going to happen. In fact there is little point draftifying what is currently, and likely to remain, a non notable journalist. The problem with the sourcing has been explained by the nom., but to be clear: sources must not just be from reliable sources, they must have significant subject of the page subject (such that the page can be written) and, importantly, they must be independent. Interviews are not independent. Their own work and listsings of their work are not independent. There needs to be independent sources that speak about this journalist, demonstrating notability. We don't have that. So sourcing is lacking. We also have no indication of notability from any of the WP:NJOURNALIST criteria. The discussion of awards would be a criterion under WP:ANYBIO which states, under criterion 1, likely notability if The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. "Well-known" and "significant" are where this falls down, and that is even supposing those awards are for the journalist (some are) and not for the programme team (as, for instance, here [20] ). So there is no pass of ANYBIO on criterion 1. Even if there were, ANYBIO is only a refutable indication of notability, and the lack of sources that talk about Jenkins is the real reason that we should not be covering this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I would agree to draftify but I don't know how. Please take this as my assent. I am puzzled by your comments, which is not to say that I disagree with them but I simply do not understand.
    I don't think any of the sources are interviews, so I don't see how that objection applies.
    When you say "their own work or listings of their work are not independent" - but surely a listing of a work on a BBC website is sufficient to demonstrate that the work exists and that the subject was producer and/or presenter of it? (Because the listings say so and the BBC is authoritative on this point)
    When you say that "There needs to be independent sources that speak about this journalist, demonstrating notability" surely multiple reviews from independent reviewers in the national press, which refer to Jenkins by name, in terms that make it clear that they consider his work to be notable, demonstrate exactly that? Again I am trying to understand, not argue.
    On the awards, there are citations for all but two. The Radio Academy (Sony) awards are as significant as they come, and the others are (or were) major industry awards. It is true that broadcast journalism awards are given to programmes and not individuals, but in the case of the one you link to, Jenkins is both presenter and producer, i.e. the entire team. This is true of many of the other ones too. In the case of File on 4, each episode had two journalists (producer and reporter) as the BBC listings show. So the credit would be equally shared. Frobisher2021 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of Why This Article Meets Wikipedia’s Notability Criteria

Although I would accept draftify as a compromise, I believe that the article does in fact meet the notability criteria

  • Press Coverage: Multiple reviews in The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, Daily Telegraph Radio Times over decades.
  • Major Industry Award: One programme awarded Sony Radio Academy Award—described as “the Oscars of British radio”; two others nominated.
  • Parliamentary Impact: His work was cited in a House of Lords Select Committee report.
  • Academic Recognition: Cited in Investigating Corporate Corruption (Taylor & Francis) and British Journalism Review and many other academic papers.
  • Senior Editorial Role: Former Deputy Editor of the New Statesman, a leading UK political magazine.

Specialist Awards: Recognized in One World Media Awards, * British Environment & Media Awards, Medical Journalism of the Year awards (twice) which have honoured major BBC and other journalists and which are widely recognised as prestigious. Frobisher2021 (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The two Medical Journalist of the Year awards, the Sony, the praise cited from reviews of his work ("The Glasgow Herald described him as 'the go-to guy for quirky subjects which require intelligence and chutzpah in equal measure', while the Radio Times has noted that 'Jenkins makes some of the most original documentaries on Radio 4' and in the same publication, David Gillard noted 'Whatever subject Jolyon Jenkins is dealing with I will listen ... I regard him one of our finest broadcasters'"), and "The Liquidators. This documentary is extensively discussed, including Jenkins's role, in the book Investigative Journalism" clearly indicate notability; as does the subject's role presenting programmes on a national radio station. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here are the problems that I see: 1) we have no sources ABOUT him other than to name him in some brief reviews in newspapers, which are not enough for GNG 2) most of the facts here are not from independent sources - his name on a BBC show listing isn't an independent source, and is very thin for sourcing 3) I have no idea if the Medical Journalist Awards are important enough to reach GNG, but that is all we have to go on. To Frobisher2021 I would recommend a review of the WP:Reliable_sources and WP:Notability since these seem to not met in the article. I removed some WP:PROMO and exaggerations in the language; I also removed the Google Doc spreadsheet citations (not a reliable source), and other non-reliable sources (linking to a Swedish TV listing of a documentary was particularly odd). My recommendation is draftify and for the editor to take this through WP:AFC where they might be given help with the problems. Lamona (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your input. The mentions from the reviews are indeed brief, but the reviews themselves are not. For example, if you follow the to the Guardian review for the "Brixmis Story", which was shortlisted for a Sony award, you will find that the reviewer goes on to say " It's an amazing story, for the full substance of which I really urge you, listen again, listen again". This is not untypical, but to quote the reviews in full would turn the article into a hagiography, which is not my intention - they are included only to demonstrate notability. The Medical Journalist of the Year awards are definitely prestigious - other winners include Michael Mosley and Marjorie Wallace. I am uncertain how to demonstrate authorship of particular programmes other than through BBC online listings. I imagine print listings in national newspapers would qualify, but would the Radio Times? Frobisher2021 (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked up the Guardian article and although there is the praise you quote, there is only a scant paragraph, and that is not what we call "substantial." You need to source as much as possible to articles ABOUT the person, and I mean ARTICLES - longish pieces (pages, not sentences) about the person. If various programs are notable (as WP defines WP:NOTABILITY) you need third-party, independent sources for the programs - more than a quick review in a piece that is essentially: this is what was on this week. Mere listings, whether on BBC or in a newspaper, are not sufficient to establish notability and are not independent. As for the awards, who has won them is not what makes them prestigious - again, we need sources that are independent that explain the importance of the awards. I looked for those and didn't find any. If you have some you should add them to the article. Lamona (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: plenty of sourced evidence of awards and recognition for his work. Yes minimal biographic info, but that is not uncommon among people who are known for their work and not for their private life. From this I could have added that his mother was a teacher for 45 years and (I think we can logically infer without OR) that he studied journalism at City University, but he appears to have chosen not to share his life on LinkedIn etc, and is no less notable for that. PamD 23:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you saw what you consider "plenty of sourced evidence" for the awards? I looked at all of the "awards" and other than the medical journalism award (which I'm still trying to find information about, beyond its own web page) I can't access the Ariel sources, and the book that is cited has only a mention of Jenkins, nothing that supports the award. Note, also, that the Sony awards for both years are nominations, not wins, and the number of nominees is quite large. Lamona (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kumawood

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

No evidence of notability. Three deadlinks and all but one of the remainder are affiliated or interviews. Only the BBC source reliably confirms the existence of Kumawood. Searches reveal social media sources but nothing that amounts to a WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   23:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet, but "keep" !voters are invited to share specific sources rather than asserting notability or linking to a list of search results.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh.... - as noted in the nomination, my own searches found many sources including those now restored. However, none of them, in my view, demonstated notability. Many are affiliated and even the source from "New African Cinema" only has two brief mentions which is well short of conveying notability. Several others are interviews with the CEO and clearly affiliated. I do, and will, restore sources where I believe that an article justifies keeping, but where the sources are clearly too weak, my efforts are better directed elsewhere IMHO.  Velella  Velella Talk   02:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As per Dclemens1971 above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the article could do with some editing - it appears that the name started as a privately owned company, but is now used to refer to a film industry based in Kumasi, Ghana. Many of the sources are about the film industry, rather than the private company - the book New African Cinema, for example, refers to "the category of "Kumawood films" ", and the "Kumawood genre". As well as the sources already in the article, the Modern Ghana news website has other stories about the state of the Kumawood industry. As Hydronium~Hydroxide noted, there are many scholarly articles about it too, including "The new wave in Ghana's video film industry: Exploring the Kumawood model" [22]; "Aberration of cultures: A study of distortion of Akan cultures in Kumawood movies in Ghana" [23]; "Re-examining Digital Effects in ‘Kumawood’ Science Fiction Film Titled 2016" [24]; "The depiction of invectives and violence in Kumawood movies" (not online, but published in 2020 at the University of Education, Winneba; "Emergence of Local Language Film Production in Ghana" [25] is largely about Kumawood; etc. It definitely meets WP:GNG. If it's not kept, however, as WP:ATD I suggest merging to Cinema of Ghana, which currently has one line about Kumawood. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:18, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vierka Berkyová

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

No indication of significance for this Z-list celeb. References are profiles and interviews. Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creepTalk 20:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Život has no byline, it is a PR announcement of the new album which never appeared and the SME stated is from the editorial office, meaning its paid for PR as well. Those two are non-rs sources. You don't know how to evaluate references. scope_creepTalk 16:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making hostile personal comments. Thank you. (I am not sure I agree with your appraisal of the sources (Korzár being what it is, not great but certainly not plainly "non-rs"; and the same goes for Život and Plus jeden deň (same group) in general and in that particular case) but even if it is correct, that's not my point). -Mushy Yank. 19:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your the editor that removed the prod and put these trash references in. You have no clue how to evaluate a proper reference either. I intend to check every article you have created in the next several weeks. scope_creepTalk 20:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Be my guest. But, again, do refrain from making (very) hostile (and rude) personal comments. -Mushy Yank. 20:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic but you can sign your comments with ~~~~ All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 13:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you have been an editor for 6 years now so I am a bit shocked that you didn't know this (that's an assumption though). Please remember to sign your comments properly. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 14:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, @All Tomorrows No Yesterdays:, not sure what you meant: who did you assume didn't sign their comments properly? Every single comment on this page was. Including mine. -Mushy Yank. 16:28, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank: – I would be fine for redirect. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clariniie: Actually, I am now a Keep myself too given the new sources presented. Thanks!-Mushy Yank. 16:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sufficient converge in secondary sources. Personal attacks are not an argument for page deletion. Newklear007 (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newklear007: What secondary sources, exactly? If there is no secondary sources that satisfies the WP:BLP and WP:BIO, then in a month or two it will going to Afd. So post up the secondary sources. I see you have only done 15 Afd's. It is common best practice, consensus based practice to post the evidence on here, so they can be reviewed, i.e. WP:SECONDARY sources that satisfy WP:BIO. Then I can close it. scope_creepTalk 14:25, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep Here you go [26][27][28][29][30] Newklear007 (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Newklear007: Thanks for posting that. It looks like there is some more stuff there that wasn't there before. I'll take a look, shortly. scope_creepTalk 15:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These references arent particularly decent either. What is here is a singer who took part in the Slovensko hľadá SuperStar, at the end was dropped by her label and never made an album. Most of the coverage is instrumental to that event and there is nothing else. She fails WP:NSINGER and WP:SIGCOV. It all z-list stuff and completely non-notable. scope_creepTalk 19:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that uncivilized behaviour, personal attacks and singling out a specific editor to follow around are all serious policy violations.
If you disagree with someone's source assessment, criticize the assessment, not the editor who presented it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hoping for some more views about the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Ahnaf

Amir Ahnaf (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:BLP of an actor and model, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for actors or models. As always, actors and models are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain specific markers of achievement supported by reliable source coverage -- but the attempted notability claim here is staked entirely on supporting or bit parts in films that don't even have Wikipedia articles about the films, and the article is sourced entirely to short blurbs and public relations fluff rather than substantive WP:GNG-worthy coverage.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The productions include: Syurga Itu Bukan Mudah (2023); Kahar: Kapla High Council (2024); Scammer Geng Marhaban (2023); Gamers Mangkuk (2023).) Coverage in English includes: https://sea.ign.com/entertainment/208982/news/explores-the-lives-of-amateur-esports-players-in-new-comedy-series-gamers-mangkuk ;https://www.cinema.com.my/articles/news_details.aspx?search=2025.n_kaharheadtoastrofirst_68231 https://thesun.my/style-life/prequel-that-stands-on-its-own-HG13375222 https://thesun.my/style-life/fight-back-to-school-EL10826442
A lot of interviews have introductions that allow to verify the roles and their significance (as well as the notability of the productions). https://www.nst.com.my/lifestyle/groove/2024/10/1124348/showbiz-thats-not-my-photo-why-am-i-being-blamed-–-amir-ahnaf for example or "people/fashion" coverage allowing the same, such as https://www.mens-folio.com/style/boys-will-be-boys-smir-ahnaf-aedy-ashraf-sky-iskandar-superdry/ https://hype.my/2023/324380/actor-amir-ahnaf-on-his-darkest-moment-feeling-empty-after-projek-high-council-success/
A lot more exists in English and in other languages. -Mushy Yank. 00:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle

Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle (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)

While this has a short receptions section, it is made of a few WP:SIGCOV mentions in passing, listicles, and even some passing commentary from a minor YouTuber. this fails WP:GNG. At best, this can be redirected, per WP:ATD-R, to Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be very surprised if this didn't have enough sources for an article; this is almost certainly extremely well documented from 1960s and 1970s sources alone. I haven't looked too far yet but the very first result is something that isn't even in the article yet, a 2001 Billboard piece reporting Vince Clarke and Martyn Ware naming their album this. Second result (ISBN 9781785306396) is about Dinky dedicating an entire plant to just this one toy. Third result is Bentley's book, already liberally used in the article. Fourth result is an Amberly book that has the SPV, not even used in the article (ISBN 9781445648736). Given the designer, almost certainly ISBN 9781932563825, again not even used in the article, is probably worth a look. The next result is ISBN 9780563534815, already used by the article. And so on. Uncle G (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Uncle G Note that subsequent comments suggest lack of SIGCOV. Did you see anything that you consider meeting SIGCOV in the sources you checked? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have copies of Bentley's books, but the fact that the article at hand at the time of nomination cites pages 21 and 53 of the 2001 one and pages 81, 163–164, and 196–197 of the 2017 one indicates that it isn't just mentioning the subject in passing. The Amberley book gives the toy form just under a page of prose followed by another half page of captioned pictures. The August 2006 PC Magazine cited in the article is indeed that whole page and directly about the relevant computer kit. I don't have a copy of the Fryer book ISBN 9781781555040 which calls it a "Spectrum SPV", which is RAS syndrome.

        One telling source is the Haynes Manual Captain Scarlet Spectrum Agents' Manual already cited at the time of nomination which treats the subject in detail and with the taking-non-cars-seriously approach of the the Haynes series according to every blurb and review that I can find. One describes that book as having "fully annotated cutaway drawings of Spectrum vehicles", and that seems to agree with the article at hand citing 6 pages of it, which some copyright violators on Pinterest hint to be several 2-page spreads with prose.

        The reason that I suspect there to be many contemporary sources, difficult to find in the (ahem!) 21 century, is that in my own second-hand book collection there is a 1967 Captain Scarlet Annual, which has a 2-page annotated spread on pages 50–51, although with no production information; and that didn't turn up in any catalogue search that I did.

        Uncle G (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge I am dubious about there being WP:SIGCOV as opposed to a lot of trivial mentions, and the same is true of all the vehicles in this series. Merging them all to a list of vehicles might be apt if they are talked about as a group. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect per Zxcvbnm. Coverage isn't much more than WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, and doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons: I agree with nom that the sources are trivial, but I definitely think it could be salvaged. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since nomination, the over-long "appearances" section has been removed and the rest of the content expanded. I have most of the cited books. Significant coverage was already present from the Boxtree book, the Anderson biography and 21st Century Visions, which together discuss the more unusual design aspects (e.g. the reversed seating) across several pages. Hardly trivial or passing mentions. The topic is also significant commercially, with a large number of toys and models through the decades, which have been discussed directly and in detail by multiple print sources (from Meccano Magazine in the '60s, to the Burman book linked by User:Uncle G, to the recent reviews in Diecast Collector). Sources are clear that this was one of the all-time best-selling diecasts, at least in the UK, and certainly Dinky's most successful product. Additionally, there is demonstrable cultural impact from the Scott coverage, which was picked up by Motorsport Network and Boing Boing (and with ~ 8 million subscribers / 2 billion views, is Scott really a "minor" YouTuber?) – plus the LaCie coverage, Andrew English in The Daily Telegraph and some pretty deep stuff from Mark Bould, a published academic. When all these elements are taken together, the topic passes the GNG. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 02:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @SuperMarioMan I do appreciate you working on this, but hmmm. You say "Significant coverage was already present from the Boxtree book", but the description I see of that book (I am unable to locate it for browsing - if you have a link, please share) suggests it is a plot summary; and indeed in our article it only cited for in-universe info (stats - speed, engine, etc.). By "the Anderson biography" I assume you mean The Authorised Biography of Gerry Anderson? We use it for a few quotations from the show creator about it; sadly, I cannot find that book to browse online either. I am concerned it fails the independent requirement - the show creator (effectively, the vehicle creator) talks about it, for what I assume are a few paragraphs in his biography - but who else does so at length? Ditto for 21st Century Visions, as it is a book by the other designer of this vehicle ("The SPV was designed by special effects director Derek Meddings based on a brief description given in the Andersons' original script for the first episode" - as our article says). I am concerned that this is borderline not enough. I'll ping User:Daranios and User:TompaDompa who have good track of reviewing such content and sources and who may be able to say more (and I'll note that Uncle G already pinged by you found some other sources that may or may not be relevant). This might be saved, but looking at the article's reception, I still fear we are just cobbling together mentions in passing from here and there. That has not been enough to save fiction-themed articles in the past (having said all of that, I certainly see there's a lot of useful content here for merging somewhere...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The exact contents of the Boxtree book escape me, but I do know that it goes into the minutiae of the vehicle. The Anderson biography is not just Anderson's comments; author Hearn talks about the commercialisation and toy design process (that part is not yet in the toys section). The toys section already cites non-trivial (several paragraphs to full page length) write-ups in print media. The reception section includes the vehicle inspiring a YT experiment (which other media then commented on); the vehicle providing the lead-in to a national newspaper preview of a real-life vehicle; and multi-page discussion from an academic, relating to the design aspects discussed further up the article. To consider all of this only "passing" coverage relies on a very broad definition of the term. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 16:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review additions provided since the article's nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CS Link (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)

lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, making it fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Loewstisch (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zulkarnain Saer Khan

Zulkarnain Saer Khan (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 individual Zulkarnain Saer Khan partook in the orchestration of a dossier denominated All the Prime Minister's Men. Consequent to the helping of this dossier, he was the recipient of a commendation entitled the Global Shining Light Awards. The Global Shining Light Awards is bereft of eminence or substantial prestige in any capacity. The mere attainment of the Global Shining Light Awards does not fullfill the criteria of notability (person), as the dossier All the Prime Minister's Men itself fails to consummately fulfill the stringent prerequisites of notability.

Furthermore, the article is an absolute dearth of elucidation absent his academic credentials. Additionally, the article harbors superfluous and extraneous verbiage, including allusions to assailments perpetrated against his brother. Hydronex (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"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."
But no other work by the individual in the article can be found apart from All the Prime Minister's Men, and All the Prime Minister's Men is neither a significant nor a well-known work. This means the individual does not fulfill point three of Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals. Hydronex (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All the Prime Minister's Men is definitely a well-known work. It got wide coverage in Bangladeshi and some international media apart from Al Jazeera Media.[37][38][39][40][41] [42] Al Jazeera also won the top prize for "Best Human Rights Journalism" (investigation category) in the 8th annual Amnesty Media award for 'All the Prime Minister's Men'.[43] Niasoh ❯❯❯ Wanna chat? 09:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable journalist in Bangladesh. He is widely recognized for impactful investigative work with Al Jazeera and OCCRP. His contributions, media coverage, and awards meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria WP:NJOURNALIST.
— Cerium4B—Talk? • 11:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Cerium4B (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) Koshuri (グ) 13:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Koshuri Sultan, He hasn’t asked for any support in his favour. He has just asked me to take a look. Maybe because this article is related to Bangladesh. [44] — Cerium4B—Talk? • 14:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is the responsibility of those who vote keep to provide a solid argument. Nothing can be gained from canvassed or paid votes. The article is highly promotional and lacks neutral tone. It overemphasizes achievements while downplaying controversies, making it more like a PR piece than an encyclopedic entry. The subject fails WP:NBLP, as most coverage comes from sympathetic or affiliated sources rather than independent, in-depth analysis. NXcrypto Message 04:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful. But, at the least, this should be a redirect to All the Prime Minister's Men which I'm surprised editors arguing for Delete didn't mention.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table prepared by User:Worldbruce
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
No ~ Okay for nickname, maybe for alma mater No ✘ No
No Interview Yes Yes ✘ No
Yes Yes No Two sentences ✘ No
~ Much of it sourced from him Yes Yes ~ Partial
Yes Yes No One sentence ✘ No
Yes Yes No Brief mention in list ✘ No
Yes Yes No Brief mention ✘ No
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Yes Yes No Brief paraphrase ✘ No
Yes Yes No Doesn't mention him ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that he meets WP:NJOURNALIST #3. As well as All the Prime Minister's Men, per the Business Standard article already cited in the article, he has contributed significantly to a report about Aynaghar, a secret internment centre - this is currently mentioned in this article only in the lede (it's what he won the Global Shining Light Award for), and a report alleging corrupt activity by another politician close to the former Bangladeshi PM (this is referred to in this article, 'Journalists in Bangladeshi diaspora say govt targets them through transnational repression', not currently cited as a source). This Benar News article also describes unevidenced allegations and slurs that have been made against him in an effort to discredit him, which is not yet mentioned in this article. Re the nominator's reference to "superfluous and extraneous verbiage", (1) this would be a matter of improving the article, not deleting it; (2) the attack on his brother was directly related to his journalistic work, and is described as such in the sources. (I'd note too that the spelling of his name on IMDB is Zulkarnayn Sayer Khan, and there may be other variants, which could make finding sources challenging). RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with your explanation. TIA. Hrksmp (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

Television proposed deletions

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts § Alerts
  1. ^ https://fromthefourthrow.com/2024/11/14/cross-review-a-fantastic-first-season-bringing-this-popular-literary-character-back-to-screens-for-fans-of-his-and-many-others/
  2. ^ https://likeadad.net/does-prime-videos-cross-get-alex-cross-right/#google_vignette
  3. ^ https://www.forensicpsychologyonline.com/alex-cross-forensic-psychologist/
  4. ^ "11th JD - Criminal Term, Queens Supreme Court ... Kew Gardens Courthouse & Annex". NYS OCA. Retrieved February 27, 2025.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Television
No tags for this post.