Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 17

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Film Creator (talk | contribs) at 01:33, 17 February 2022 (Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gotham (film) (2nd nomination).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:33, 17 February 2022 by The Film Creator (talk | contribs) (Adding Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gotham (film) (2nd nomination).)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday January 2 (Thu) January 1 (Wed) December 31 (Tue) More...
Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< February 16	February 18 >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Gotham (film)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFO, WP:NFSOURCES and WP:SIGCOV; found no reviews on Rotten Tomatoes; I found this link from Google Books in a WP:BEFORE but it needs more coverage in order to be eligible. The Film Creator (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep I managed to turn up a couple of pretty solid reviews. Artw (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep, book and Washington Post review are enough to pass WP:NFILM. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep per added sources. Passes WP:NFILM. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep - Two instances of SIGCOV now added so this is a pass for WP:GNG at least. FOARP (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Weak keep The Washington Post article is good to establish notability. However, it needs more quality sources and I wasn't able to find them.--Art&football (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw this nomination per consensus. The Washington Post article and Google Books link are enough to pass NFO, NFSOURCES and NEXIST. The Film Creator (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Broken Vows (1987 film)

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

Keep: Per Corpus Christi Times, Times-Advocate, and The Courier-Journal. SL93 (talk) 02:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 02:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep per newspaper reviews listed above. Something to note for pre-internet films, most sources will be newspapers...so, unless you have access to a site like newspapers.com, its probably best to not nominate them as someone who does have access will more than likely find them and list them in the discussion. (Just my 2 cents.) DonaldD23 talk to me 03:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep per SL93. Lugnuts 09:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep, I have expanded the article with reference material from historic newspapers, which coupled with the sources noted by SL93, make me confident that it is enough to satisfy notability. Bungle 20:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I withdraw the nomination per consensus. The Film Creator (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. If someone wants them to actively incubate in draft, I'm happy to provide, but consensus is they don't currently merit articles, and there isn't the sourcing required to verify tie for merger. Star Mississippi 02:11, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Sri Asih

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

Numerous unreleased film articles are created on the same day which are supposedly part of Bumilangit Cinematic Universe. None of them seem to have enough reliable and independent coverage on production to meet WP:NFF guidelines for future films. -- Ab207 (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note Also nominating the following related articles for the aforementioned reasons.

Comment the sources seems to be reliable sources, mentioning few of them being CNN Indonesia, Kompas and others...."majority" of them are independent while some seems a bit related to the subject but not a surprise from a well known company and director - however it is really important to define whether now it is the appropriate time to include them in an article or not. Amoeba69th (talk) 08:28, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- They may be reliable but the coverage is largely announcements and interviews with the crew. Infact, the articles do not even confirm the commencement of principle photography which is the bare minimum for inclusion under WP:NFF. -- Ab207 (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete most charitably as WP:NOTCRYSTAL. An "upcoming" film whose release dates have come and gone multiple times does not qualify as a WP:NFILM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Draftify all to allow article development and preserve history. Neocorelight (Talk) 04:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To determine whether or not these articles created prematurely should be deleted or draftified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 04:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge with Bumilangit Cinematic Universe: It is an upcoming film in the series so it makes sense to merge and redirect to a "upcoming films" section of the page. Gusfriend (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Give us abreak, now we have 3 choices but no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz 18:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Delete all per Eggishorn's rationale above. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. The article reads in its entirety "The Chiesa Vetero-Cattolica Italiana ("Italian Old-Catholic Church") is an Old Catholic churches in Italy", referenced to a link to the group's website. After two weeks of AfD, nobody has found and added any secondary sources. The article therefore clearly fails WP:V, which rules out the merger proposed by some. Sandstein 08:15, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Chiesa Vetero-Cattolica Italiana

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

This alleged organisation has almost no secondary RS to support its existence, and none has been added in the 15 years of existence of the Misplaced Pages article.
The article claims without any source that this groups has been existing for more than two centuries, which seems false to me as in this case there would be many secondary RSs discussing this denomination; however, only one ~~such RS mentions~~ unreliable source discusses this group, the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia (Centro studi sulle nuove religioni, 2001, which is considered unreliable) which states (p. 49) the 2-century existence of the organisaton is a claim and not a fact. I found no ~~other~~ RS on Google Books and on Google Scholar which even mention this organisation, and found respectively two and one mention(s) in total of this organisation on those databases, including the one in the Enciclopedia delle religioni in Italia.
This organisation clearly does not meet WP:NCHURCH, being discussed in only one RS. "A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization" (Misplaced Pages:Notability (organizations and companies)#Multiple sources).
I recommend deletion. Veverve (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Not one mention in the resources available through the Misplaced Pages Library, fails WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Even the source found by the nominator is not reliable. It is self-published, being written by the founders of its publisher CESNUR, which has been found to be unreliable at WP:RSN. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: thanks for pointing this out, it has indeed been declared unreliable. For those interested, see Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#CESNUR. I will edit my AfD nomination statement. Veverve (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete. The only sources cited are (a) the church's own website and (b) three 19th century documents or sets of documents, but I'm not even sure whether they discuss this specific church, and aren't cited to support any particular statement in the article. That's not enough to pass WP:ORG. If the church really is notable, some independent, reliable sources need to be provided to prove that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@Metropolitan90: none of the three 19th-century documents given as external links mention this group. Veverve (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
~~Merge to Old Catholic Church~~ Merge and redirect to Old Catholic Church in Italy This is a translation of the same article in the Italian Misplaced Pages, which also lacks reliable sources (as is their wont). The English translation of the title is "Old Catholic Church". The article on Old Catholic Church does not have much on Italy, so it makes sense that someone thought the Italian aspect of this history was worth noting. I did find articles in G-scholar searching on "chiesa vetero-cattolica" on this general topic, some of which were clearly about Italy. Ditto G-books. Books in English on the topic may have information about the Italian movement, e.g. this book which has 34 mentions of Italy. I also found one online site, Bottegadinazareth, a religious publication probably not entirely independent. The name varies in these texts, sometimes being in the plural form, which makes it hard to search on. ~~So it's a real thing with a real theological history, some of which takes place in Italy. I'm willing to do a first pass at merge if someone will remind me.~~ Lamona (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lamona: I fail to understand you argument (you are perhaps proposing a WP:RLOTE). If you search for the Italian translation of "Old Catholic Church", then you will indeed find sources discussion the Old Catholic movement. You can do that with any language. The article is not about the Old Catholic movement in Italy, but about an alleged specific groups of Old Catholics in Italy. The question is: which sources discuss this particular group, whose website is https://www.chiesaveterocattolica.it ? Veverve (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

merge -- This is a denomination, though probably a small one, rather than a mere local church. It should probably be called Old Catholic Church in Italy. I find that such an article already exists, so that this sohould probably be merged there. I am not clear if both articles relate to the same denomination; if not, they can still be accommodated within one article. The external links cite three Anglican sources. These will be external to the denomination. Why are these not RS? I am reluctant to support a merge to Old Catholic Church, because that will upset the balance of that article. There are no doubt many national manifestations of that denomination/movement, which might be listed in that article, but could not be appropriately covered in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Peterkingiron Good catch - I hadn't thought to look for Old Catholic Church in Italy. I agree that any merging should be done to that article. I'm neutral on whether a redirect is needed. Lamona (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Peterkingiron: The external links cite three Anglican sources. These will be external to the denomination. Why are these not RS?: as I wrote above, none of those external links - which are 19th-century sources - are related to or mention this alleged group whose existence is so far unproven.

It is clear to me the Old Catholic Church in Italy is not the same as the Chiesa Vetero-Cattolica Italiana. Where do you get the idea those could be the same group? Veverve (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Veverve Can you give any sources that would explain this? Everything I've read puts the Italian "version" of the Old Catholic Church as evolving from the same history as the OCC in the rest of Europe. It appears that it has taken a somewhat different direction in each culture, but the basic tenets seem to be coherent. The Italian web site gives this: "la Missione Cristiana Cattolica Italiana, assumendo la denominazione di Chiesa Vetero-Cattolica Italiana, seguita la sua Opera sostenendo e divulgando il Rito antico, il Sacerdozio dei laici e la Scienza- Arte Salutare Cristica" and I read that's what is defined in the Old Catholic Church article. However, I had not noticed that there is *also* an article Old Catholic Church in Italy, which seems to cover the same ground as this one, and gives the Italian name as *Chiesa Vetero-Cattolica in Italia*. There are articles for Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands, Old Catholic Church of America, but also Old Catholic Church in Italy, Old Catholic Church in Poland etc. It seems this needs some theological expertise. In any case I still think that there is no reason to keep this nominated article, and if there is relevant information in it then perhaps the merge should be to Old Catholic Church in Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamona (talk • contribs) 00:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lamona: Again, I do not understand what you are trying to argue. All Old Catholics agree on a set of tenets, a core doctrine, just like any Christian denomination. The article is not about how Old Catholicism developed in Italy, but is about a specific group of Old Catholics. Old Catholic Church in Poland, Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands and Old Catholic Church in Italy are not general articles about the History of Old Catholicism in Poland, the Netherlands or in Italy; those articles are about specific groups which happen to be called "Old Catholic Church in Poland", "Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands" and "Old Catholic Church in Italy".

The Old Catholic Church in Italy's website is , while the Chiesa Vetero-Cattolica Italiana's website is . They are therefore clearly not the same group. Veverve (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If you read through those two links you see that one is under the umbrella of the Conferenza Episcopale Internazionale di Utrecht, which was an umbrella organization for all of the "old catholics". The second one explains that the Italian group separated from the Utrect organization in 1997. ("Dal 1997 si è resa autonoma dal patronato della Conferenza Episcopale Internazionale di Utrecht per mantenersi fedele al principio conciliare della Chiesa Antica.") This history is included in the article for Old Catholic Church in Italy: "The Old Catholic Church in Italy (Italian: Chiesa Vetero-Cattolica in Italia) was a Union of Utrecht of the Old Catholic Churches (UU) mission in Italy until 2011. Some former missions are in full communion with the Anglican Communion." So those two are different phases of the same group. If you have evidence of yet another group that needs to be accommodated, please present it. (I note that the article on Old Catholic Church does not link to Old Catholic Church in Italy and I see nothing on the talk page to explain this.) Lamona (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The dates do not match (1997 vs 2011) so it cannot be the same group. Moreover, the Union of Utrech (UU) has many churches which are part of it, so it is possible there were two distinct, independent Old Catholic groups in Italy part at one point of the UU and left it at some point. Moreover, your whole argument relies on those WP:PRIMARY SOURCES being reliable, which is quite a bold assumption for such a small unknown group. Veverve (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment. There are lots of churches which are, or have been, part of the Independent Catholicism movement, some of which specifically identify themselves as Old Catholic, but not all of which are members of the Union of Utrecht (Old Catholic). This article is about a particular church known as Chiesa Vetero-Cattolica Italiana, and the question is whether we have adequate sources discussing this church as opposed to other churches with similar names. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

1996–97 Dumbarton F.C. season

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

Under-referenced and non-notable article for lower division, part-time football club Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment - if this does end up going then I'm concerned that others of a similar level like 1996–97 Livingston F.C. season may need looking at further Spiderone 21:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Livi had some full-time players in 1997 "Jim Leishman has 14 full-time players and 10 part-time and the club leads the Second Division." Albeit not in a 'fully professional' league. I doubt if Dumbarton have ever had a single full-time player. You will remember that there is a very high bar of coverage required for these season articles per NSEASONS: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 9 Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

From the precedent set in that discussion, I dare say a good hundred or so more season articles could probably be deleted. Spiderone 18:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete - it's a shame as Dumbarton have, I think, a full set of season articles with a lot of time and effort clearly having gone into their creation. But they are sourced almost entirely from one book and one club stats site, and for the majority of their history they have played in the lower divisions, so I just don't see these as having SIGCOV or meeting NSEASONS (there are a few periods of top-tier play which I understand would be valid for retention). What I would suggest is that the significant events and couple of lines from the overview of this and each invalid year could be grouped together under something like Dumbarton F.C. 1990s seasons, which I understand is an acceptable alternative to a set of individual articles. Crowsus (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Definitely a good possibility. Alternatively, we could have a prose article like History of Dumbarton F.C. which could be split into articles if it gets too big, like we do with History of Liverpool F.C. (1985–present), History of Liverpool F.C. (1959–1985) etc. I think the community prefers this to just random season stats articles, which often drift into WP:INDISCRIMINATE territory if we're not careful. Spiderone 18:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep Needs improving(sources wise), not deleting. ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 16:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep As the author I have a vested interest in keeping. I have invested months of research into Dumbarton and just because I do not list every source does not mean that it is limited to a couple of books/archives. I thoroughly research every addition and usually detail the most relevant/detailed source. User:aitkegs (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you give one or two more examples, User:aitkegs, of good sources? That would quickly end this debate. Nfitz (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes do not adequately address the nom's concern.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Lean towards keep There are enough sources in the article and out there to technically pass GNG. Part of the nomination for deletion states the club is "part-time football club". I really don't understand that statement, there is no such thing as a part-time football club. The club file their accounts with companies house state the club run under "small companies regime" and have opted to not file their statement of income. , In the report it is indicated that the total number of employees is 23 for the year 2020. I can't see this being all the footballers, so it seems that the club is operating in a semi-professional format. So the season would fail under WP:NSEASONS. But that doesn't supersede GNG which can probably be sorted out. Govvy (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Govvy, "part-time football club" is a fairly standard way in British English to refer to a team which has only semi-pro players..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  - @ChrisTheDude: That's rather archaic terminology if you ask me. Even in the off season a club still has to be run. File it's accounts every year; year after year... Govvy (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    - @Govvy: you are almost certainly right, but I was just pointing out that the expression is definitely used eg in this BBC article, which states Tickets and travel have had to be sorted, media engagements fulfilled, training venues secured and sponsors contacted, which is a heavy demand on a part-time club. Anyhoo, this is getting a bit off-topic now..... :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Delete - I've followed this debate for 2 weeks and I'm not convinced that the sourcing required to pass WP:GNG actually exists here. I believe that this should be deleted with no prejudice to being restored if someone does come forward with significant coverage of this season in reliable sources that are independent of Dumbarton F.C. itself. I really do believe that an article like History of Dumbarton F.C. would be more appropriate than having stand-alone articles for every single season which, in my view, borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We set the standards very high at this AfD for season articles and this was upheld at this DRV. It would be silly to keep this article on a season with much, much less in terms of evidence of notability. Spiderone 22:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep As said by ArsenalGhanaPartey (talk), the article need to be improved, not deleted. Rillington (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep per Govvy. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Keep Referenced, plus unlike many EPL teams, actually has prose. And per Govvy. Nfitz (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

The result was keep. Liz 05:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Buddy Bernier

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

The article is only sourced to IMDb which is not a reliable source. I search for other sources, I only found a few mentions, I did not find any signifcant sources giving indepth coverage. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I've managed to find an obituary in Variety and a mention in Down Beat (which I've added to the article). Not sure if that is enough to keep or where this falls on WP:MUSICBIO. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep He was active mainly in the 40s and 50s. There are ample offline sources via Newspaper Archives. I've added the Lowell Sun (from 1944) and will add more later. (Use the Misplaced Pages Library! It's an amazing resource.) JSFarman (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Keep Added sources demonstrate he satisfies WP:COMPOSER#1("Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition"). 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep, I have only done a very brief search myself but already have come up with plenty of material and mentions in historic press that are more than passing or trivial. I have expanded the article a little with this but this is not exhaustive. May I suggest to the nominator, particularly on the back of another AfD which I have also participated in, that they expand their searches to historic newspapers, including google books and get a subscription to newspapers.com via The Misplaced Pages Library. Bungle 15:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure when this changed, but Google's newspapers search used to be a separate link in our find sources template whereas it can now be found as a drop down menu choice in the Google book search link result. Perhaps it should be restored as a separate link to highlight it? 68.189.242.116 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I was never aware of it being a direct link previously, but then i'd typically do a manual search anyway so wouldn't know. Google used to maintain their newspapers database but now it exists only as an archive of what was done previously, so unsure if something changed around that time. Either way, it's not difficult to change the drop down to "newspapers", nor for experienced editors to apply for a newspapers.com account. I can't read the obituary posted by Vladimir.copic, though it may have additional useful content not found in the newspapers. Bungle 17:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

This talk page commentary (Module_talk:Find_sources#Google_News_vs._Newspapers) indicates it was changed on October 17, 2021 after a very short discussion. I agree that accessing the newspaper archive should not be too difficult for anyone familiar with Google book search results, but I think there is something to be said for making it as easy as possible. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep - think I can safely give this vote now with the additional sources found and arguments above. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Kerala Vision

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

Referenceless and not notable Greatder (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Greatder (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 15:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment to find relevant sources we may need to search for non-english sources. People in Kerala appear to speak a variety of languages including Malayalam, Tamil, Tulu, and Kannada. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 15:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 15:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment has been proposed for deletion in the past, the end result being the merging of two articles. According to this source, the company is active, so this article can be kept with the involvement of a local publisher.--Tysska (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Kerala Vision seems to be primarily a broadband provider which also has a television channel under the same name, I have not found sufficient sourcing for the channel to meet WP:GNG. In any case if this is going to be notable, it would probably be because of the broadband provider so weak delete per WP:TNT if not anything. Regarding the broadband provider itself, there is a lot of coverage in terms of passing mentions and some non trivial ones but I've couldn't find anything that can adequately satisfy WP:NORG. For instance, they made the news for extending internet connectivity to some remote villages. I may have missed something, although this is a regional if not a local distributor so I wouldn't count on it. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 21:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Delete I am unable to locate any references in any language that meets the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP. HighKing 13:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)