Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

27 July 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< July 26	July 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

WhatsApp University

AfDs for this article:

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

The term is indeed used in India. However, I don't think it has scope beyond a definition. It can be easily integrated in Fake news in India#Modes of distribution (WP:CFORK). Although start-class, it pretty much looks like a future repository for dumping all fake news spread on WhatsApp. For serious cases, there is already Indian WhatsApp lynchings. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NEO. The topic is better covered in Fake news in India#Modes of distribution, and the term is not separately notable. Many of the sources here just contain uses of the term but actually cover the topic (and not the term). Maybe merge a brief mention of the definition in the NDTV article. hinnk (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the references added, keeping my !vote as is. These links [1][2][3][4] were added to support discussion of a Kerala High Court case. None of these mention the case at all, and none discuss WhatsApp University beyond using the phrase in a headline (two are political cartoons). The statement that "The phrase has…been a subject of stand-up comics" is referenced to a short review of a single comedian, where the topic is recapped very briefly. To Grabup's question below, the existing coverage isn't significant, and we're seeing how trying to present it as such means misleading readers. hinnk (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: i added some of WP:RS references. and this phrase clearly passes WP:GNG. Youknow? (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agree with @Youknowwhoistheman --BeLucky (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with @hinnk, the topic can be better covered in Fake news in India#Modes of distribution, other than the defination, there is not much to inside the scope of this article which cannot be put under the Fake news article. Xoocit (talk) 08:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough sources are cited to establish the subject's notability. In my opinion, if there can be a standalone article with sufficient coverage, what is the reason to redirect? GrabUp - Talk 03:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Sufficient sources have been added to make a reasonable case for inclusion. I am somewhat dubious that this will develop into a full article, so a merge could make more sense down the road. We can cross that bridge when we get there.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For now, however, should be reviosited and if still not fleshed out, should be Redirect as that would be the best move if there is still not much thereCassierREDDDD (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a very common topic in India so it is notable. Perhaps a disambiguation page pointing later to the real Whatsapp University. Sectioneer (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a clearer discussion of the sources and whether they contain significant coverage of the topic? A source table would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 20th Century Fox films (1980–1989)

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

This doesn't meet WP:NLIST / WP:GNG. It has no assertion of notability or references. Boleyn (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is an obviously notable topic for a list (or set). The split into lists by years, including this one, exists only for navigation reasons. References can be added, easily but Afds are not for cleanup.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 03:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I incline towards delete, in agreement with Boleyn, but I won't vote for the moment. However, I have a question: what is the point restricting it to the 1980s? There were certainly famous films (such as The Robe) well before that. Athel cb (talk) 13:55, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several sibling lists for other decades, so the concept was clearly "split long list up into multiple sublists for convenience". If The Robe was from an earlier decade, thus, then it would simply belong in another decade's list. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect Duplicates List_of_20th_Century_Fox_films_(1935–1999)#1980s, as do List of 20th Century Fox films (1935–1939), List of 20th Century Fox films (1970–1979), and List of 20th Century Fox films (1990–1999). If you're going to split the page, you have to finish the job. Reywas92^Talk 14:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G-Worldwide Entertainment

AfDs for this article:

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

Again, this article is deceptively written, creating an initial impression that it meets the criteria of WP:NCORP unless scrutinized closely. Critically fails WP:ORGCRIT, There is not even a single source from the article or WP:BEFORE to establish any context of notability. Being a nominee of The Beatz Awards is not significant enough to make it presumptively notable. Over all, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Business, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom, none of the sourcing meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Garcia

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

Promotional page for non-notable engineer and public speaker. I couldn't find any reliable sources via Google News or Newsbank Database (wider and deeper than Google). Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NPROF, WP:AUTHOR. Cabrils (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Intiraymi

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

Not sure this person passes WP:NACTOR, mostly minor roles. Can't find any reliable sources discussing them apart from the cited nytimes source which isn't specifically about Intiraymi, but mentions him in passing in 3 paragraphs of a rather long piece about the state of the entertainment industry in LA in the late 1990s. Other sources I have been able to find are Star Trek fansites, which I wouldn't consider significant coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Science fiction and fantasy, and California. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Re WP:NACTOR, this subject has played a significant role in Star Trek: Voyager. But I am not finding that his role in One Tree Hill (TV series) was very significant. And it would take one or two more solid ones to find that he did so in multiple productions. The subject also fails WP:ANYBIO for lack of in-depth biographical coverage by unrelated parties. JFHJr (㊟) 00:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but also JFHjr, who touches on ANYBIO. I think this is a fundamental fail. Perhaps when their career trajectory continues in the way they want it, it'll be different. Not quite now though. ——Serial Number 54129 00:48, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]