Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rimpy Prince

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rimpy Prince

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Highly advertorialized article about a filmmaking duo, not properly referenced as passing WP:CREATIVE. The notability claim on offer here is that their work exists, and the referencing consists entirely of their work metaverifying its own existence on either their own self-published website or YouTube. As usual, however, this is not how notability is established: the inclusion test is not "the work exists", it's "the work has been externally validated as significant by third parties independent of the topic's own public relations agent, such as by winning notable awards and/or being the subject of reliable source coverage in real media". Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt them from having to be referenced properly.
Just to clarify, by the way: even though the advertorialism here is so egregious that it could theoretically be speedied G11, I don't see that as a viable approach here: the advertorialism was added entirely within the last 24 hours and the article is technically revertable back to the version that existed as of yesterday — but that version still didn't make or properly source an actual notability claim at all, so reverting the advertorialism wouldn't actually render the article keepable in the least. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, sources are just youtube videos. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2022 (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.