Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television

WP:DELSORT/TV

	WikiProject Television

Project main page
Project discussion
Project assessment	talk
Television portal	talk
Descendant WikiProjects and task forces
Showcase

Project organization
Article alerts
Deletion sorting
Popular pages
New articles
Project banner	talk
Project category	talk
Project templates	talk
Television stubs

Guidelines
Project manual of style	talk
Project notability guidelines	talk
TV article naming convention	talk
Broadcasting article naming convention	talk

Related WikiProjects
Actors and Filmmakers
Albums
Animation
Anime and manga
Comics
Film
Literature
Media franchises
Radio
Screenwriters
Westerns

view · edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Television. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Television|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

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

Box Cricket League

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable cricket tournaments that clearly fail WP:GNG. Just because they were in TV, that doesn't make them notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Cricket, India, and Punjab. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buried Hearts

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

The article's title neither official nor confirmed as the English title from the independent secondary reliable sources. Also WP:TOOSOON. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 06:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Korea. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 06:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken in WP:TVSERIES, as long as the article had its creator, writer, and confirmed cast members with reliable sources, the article may be notable, and the title can be change if it's WP:COMMONTITLE. Aidillia (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidillia You're right about TVSERIES that's why I created a draft article of the drama but on COMMONTITLE I will disagree just for the same reason of my AfD rationale. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 06:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So should just moved it to the original title? Aidillia (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Aidillia (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhya Tara

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

Am adaption of Devatha – Anubandhala Alayam which a good target for redirect as an WP:ATD, but as it stands, none of the sourcing is reliable. All on the page falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, especially based on recent RSN discussion on WP:TOI. I am unable to find anything in a WP:BEFORE that is reliable to establish notability. CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devatha_–_Anubandhala_Alayam#Adaptations. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Pottery Throw Down series 1

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

The sources used explain the tv series as a whole. So, it might be a good merge/redirect candidate with just the ratings pushed through. The target would be the main article The Great Pottery Throw Down.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The content itself appears to have no issues, but does not stand alone as an article and thus should be moved into the main article. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article. The result tables of the individual episodes seem overkill, but the result summaries and the ratings are probably worthwhile. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Rider (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)

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

Unnecessary incomplete disambiguation page (WP:INCDAB) of non-articles when IMO Ghost Rider (disambiguation) already takes care of all three entries. No incoming links. Redirecting it to the dab page as the (to me) obvious fix got reverted, so more discussion may be needed.

Entry #1: a redirect to a character list bullet point for a fictional character that had a non-speaking cameo appearance in the TV series
Entry #2: a redirect to a character list section for a one-season recurring character; it's debatable if this incarnation needs to be added to the dab page beyond the general character
Entry #3: a redirect to an episode list entry

– sgeureka ^t•c 11:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Disambiguations. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ghost Rider (disambiguation)#Television and redirect: Links there are already provided to the comics versions, which in turn have references to the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. versions, but that disambiguation page does not include the direct links to the TV versions. I believe it would be beneficial to have those links as well. Daranios (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a fork of the other disambiguation. We don't need two. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge contents to Ghost Rider (disambiguation) § Television where these direct links to the AoS versions would be most beneficial. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated to the nom, they previously redirected while not merging any of the links. Merge all links. Gonnym (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the dab page and my nom, which indicate no merge (strictly) necessary. One link is already at the dab page, one is so trivial that it shouldn't be merged, and one is indirectly at the dab page via Ghost_Rider_(Robbie_Reyes)#Television. The reader will find everything they want via the general dab page already. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgeureka: Please review the merge statments above. I agree that merging those additional links is not strictly necessary as they can be found in a roundabout way, but for anyone whose interest starts from the TV appearance, it would be easier to have them. In my view that includes the brief mention, too. And if we can make life more convenient for one group of Wikipedia readers, why shouldn't we. Daranios (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disagreeing with you, but I want to make clear that I am opposed to merging all, and I am opposed to this INCDAB existing, both of which Gonnym explicitly argues for in word and action. That's all. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 11:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ghost Rider (disambiguation) per nom – As a relative newcomer to the Marvel universe, when I look up a character I'm interested in seeing their history in the comics as well as in film or TV, so the main dab page makes sense to me in a case like this. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kailash Waghmare

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

Bit-part actor. Fails WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE Raw on-air personalities

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of WWE Raw on-air personalities

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

Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#For weekly wrestling shows, subsections listing every single combination of announce team need to be deleted, there is a consensus on Wikiproject Professional Wrestling that articles such as these are not fit for purpose. They are mostly unreferenced or extremely poorly referenced, and are made up of WP:Fancruft ie trivial information only interesting to a niche amount of readers. They also break the guidelines of WP:NOTDIRECTORY.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Regards, CeltBrowne (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and Wrestling. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fandom-like content. --Mann Mann (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This simply does not belong here at all, can't even keep focused on the content involved with sidebars involving 'shows within a show', has completely uncited dates and fanon, and grossly violates WP:ACCESS with WP:SMALLTEXT and inappropriate use of notes. I expect responses to try to dissuade me because the worst members of WP:PW (not all including the nom here; some of them I've bumped into through other show and network articles though) maintain a hellscape I have no interest in ever interacting with, and that'll remain so with this vote!. Nate • (chatter) 23:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RadioactiveGiant

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

Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The problem appears to be with WP:CORPDEPTH in particular, since there was only trivial coverage in virtually every source I found. The sources already in the article are IMDB or trivial announcements such as a business agreement or the opening of a studio. Tagged for notability since 2011. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fathoms Below (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T-Bag (Prison Break)

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

Fails WP:GNG not very much WP:SIGCOV mainly just routine episode coverage Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a number of reliable sources which talk about this character, displaying significant real world coverage.
Merge or weak keep. The current article state has too much WP:UNDUE plot and could be cut down to fit in the LoC no problem (most other main characters don't have standalone articles either). On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if there are enough sources to turn this topic into a Good Article, so it needn't stay merged forever. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ETA: And there is a Prison Break character with GA status (that I don't even remember from watching the show): Alexander Mahone. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Buerge

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

Notable for only being the main bachelor of The Bachelor (American TV series) season 2, the target that the nominated page should be redirected to. (The Bachelor (American TV series) is an alternative, but I prefer just season-specific.) His activities outside the series don't measure up to make WP:BIO1E (if not WP:BLP1E) inapplicable. Furthermore, the second season of The Bachelor may not have been a major event as it is perceived or marketed to be, despite good or decent viewership. If the cited rules don't apply, how about WP:PAGEDECIDE instead? George Ho (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Missouri. George Ho (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Rossilli Jr.

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

The claim of notability as a media entrepreneur is weak and lacks the in-depth reliable and verifiable sources required to back up the claim. Recording songs for release on iTunes is an even weaker claim of notability, not does his work as a teacher reach any notability standard. I was unable to find any meaningful in-depth coverage for him in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Film, and New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Journalism, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found, Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete – He does not have enough news coverage. 3 references were Staff directories. I removed them.Mysecretgarden (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Monument Mythos

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

Appears to fail notability guidelines. Most of the article’s sources are student newspapers by the author’s own description. Could not find reliable significant coverage in my search. Has been previously deleted. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Has been previously deleted.... when? Has been previously kept....Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:The_Monument_Mythos... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was kept as a draft. It was nominated for deletion as a draft by a non-good-faith actor. But that is not evidence that there was a consensus that the subject is notable after someone challenged its notability. Drafts are not deleted for lack of notability so a draft being kept does not mean that editors thought that the subject is notable. —Alalch E. 15:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, maybe, but the page was discussed and the then-draft found promising by some users, whereas deletion was NOT discussed, so that stating ’has been previously deleted’ here (an AfD venue, where consensus is what matters) is misleading imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that's is misleading. The decision to keep the draft does not matter at all in either direction. —Alalch E. 22:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Nomad Vagabond)} 14:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if, as one of the contributors to the page, you could find time to explain why you think deletion is not necessary. Thank you in advance. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Babysharkboss2 (pinging you to increase chances you read this). Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. Anyway, this has etiquette enough sources and there are still sources to be added. It survived MfD (Even after one very...passionate user wanted it gone). So i'd like to keep it. Babysharkboss2!! ^{(Nomad Vagabond)} 12:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is about all there is [1] for sourcing and it's not enough. Rest of what's used is marginally reliable sources per Source Highlighter, so not much of anything we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am satisfied with the existing coverage, see GNews please. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: significant coverage in reliable sources includes Collider (twice) but also The Gamer among other things and I would consider https://fnewsmagazine.com/2022/01/ghosts-in-the-machine-the-star-spangled-monsters-of-mister-manticores-the-monument-mythos/ and the article in the The Signal perfectly acceptable sources too.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find F Newsmagazine to be a very good, professional-level, outlet in the areas of culture and critique of visual media. —Alalch E. 14:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Tharwat

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

Egyptian actor of dubious notability. Sole provided reference does not cover subject in depth, nothing better found in English, but better references may be available in Arabic. Possibly eligible for a G5 speedy because author has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet, but taking to AfD on the off chance that evidence of notability can be found. --Finngall ^talk 22:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Egypt. --Finngall ^talk 22:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the subject appears to pass WP:ENT because he “has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.” On the other hand sourcing isn’t great. There are a couple of other Mohamed Tharwats (not actors) and some of the sources about this one are chatty interviews but I found 1, 2 and 3 after a non-intensive search. Mccapra (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is an unreferenced list of productions that he may or may not have acted in. Nothing would be lost be deleting, and if anyone ever wanted to write a real article about him with, y'know, sources, they could do that at any time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Bray

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

Fails WP:NACTOR because he’s only appeared in one film. The Film Creator (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The Film Creator (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not at all relevant or useful, low quality article. Alon9393 (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches introduced 1976–77

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

Fails WP:NLIST. There are about 40(!) more of these lists, one for each season, but I refuse to bundle them all herein. (One Verdict should rule them all, and in the darkness bind them.) List of recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches and Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches (listed alphabetically) are quite sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two "sufficient" pages you mention are mostly links to the pages you want to delete. 173.66.241.40 (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So? What's your point? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches. There is simply no need for so many pages. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think these could be in a single large list or grouped by decade rather than as dozens of season-based pages. The concept is fine since there are a lot of notable sketches (and sketches/characters with enough coverage to warrant mention in a list but not a standalone article), but the ones that have only appeared twice or otherwise lack context should be trimmed. Reywas92^Talk 22:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is probably the best course, starting with this one. There are so many of these that we do need to have an intelligent discussion about how to (re-)organize them. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin R. Begnaud

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

Nominating for deletion as a BEFORE check does not show any significant coverage of the article subject. I am also unable to locate within any of the references used in the article, Evidence of significant coverage. Most of the article is entirely unsourced and appears to constitute original research. There is no secondary coverage available to substantiate many of the claims made. The article would have to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopaedic and I do not believe there is sufficient sourcing out there to do so. This means deletion is I believe the most appropriate option available. It is possible that some of the works this man has been a producer for our notable however notability is not inherited and he would still need to meet the criteria set out at WP:NPRODUCER, which he does not. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Byeon Seong-tae

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Appearing during a particular filming and as an alternate role doesn't always show notability, because sometimes, those type of actors aren't covered in multiple reliable sources. And that's the see here. Appearing also in music videos doesn't show either, hence this is a prompt lack of WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, Entertainment, and South Korea. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 13:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:REALITYSINGER. cyberdog958^Talk 23:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shwan Attoof

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

Doesn't meet WP:ACTOR, as there were few or no sources showing notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Entertainment. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shwan is well known film actor/director in Kurdistan/Iraq, the article could be stay. I added serval new references. Kushared (talk) 06:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudheendra Venkatesh

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Working as a PR officer doesn't merit a Wikipedia article since there is no WP:SIGCOV. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:02, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Entertainment, and India. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

There is a article " Diamond Babu ". He too is a PRO in Tamil Film Industry. Sudheerbs (talk) 10:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page reads as WP:PROMO. Out of 13 sources on the page, 7 are unreliable sources and the 6 others are very poor with passing mention. Fails notability. The subject's achievements are not notable that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sir, Which are the unreliable sources? Sudheerbs (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodoric of York, Medieval Barber

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

I couldn't find evidence to show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches; non-notable. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This sketch doesn't meet WP:N. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kamen Rider Gavv episodes

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

WP:REDUNFORK of Kamen Rider Gavv. It only has 2 episodes as of now which fails WP:TVSPLIT for being WP:TOOSOON Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 episodes as of now, but the series is expected to run weekly for an entire year like every series in the Super Sentai/Kamen Rider franchise. Exukvera (talk) 14:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

probably draftify it for now. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 23:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How much episodes are needed so that it can be properly accepted as an article? 10? 20? The series is expected to have 40+ eps. Exukvera (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TVSPLIT it said at least 50 but I saw many list of episodes of animes. Listing 24 as minimum Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a few months this discussion will be pointless. All series in this franchise have a separate episode list because the main article would be too big with it. Some anime episode lists have 12 episodes or less, specially when there are multiple seasons with a separate article for each season. You can consider this as a list for another season in a 50+ yrs long show. Exukvera (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it's WP:TOOSOON plus it has a separate article that had an "episode" section Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The episode section in the main article only has the titles. It would be too big with the titles and summaries and references for each ep. All Tokusatsu pages are made in a similar fashion. Exukvera (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll just WP:DRAFTIFY it for the moment until it reaches 24 episodes Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 09:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Exukvera (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exukvera, don't move an article being discussed at an AFD to Draft space. It won't stop this discussion. If you would like this article draftified, then cast a vote for "Draftify". But don't take action yourself on this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadreza Mousavi

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Iran. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bae Youn-kyu

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Appearing on non notable films doesn't show notability because it can't draw WP:SIGCOV from sources. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Entertainment, and South Korea. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just move it to draft... Aidillia (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agree with Aidillia to draftify rather than delete. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 ^{[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺]} 16:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Dawes

AfDs for this article:

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

No WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Purely lacks notability per WP:NACTOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and United States of America. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:SIGCOV need more sources. Xegma(talk) 17:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did remove all of the really iffy links, and there's not much left to say. It's full of lists with no sources, and I admit I fear a COI since this has all be done by a single editor who is also a SPA. I also have a memory of this coming by recently, yet the first AfD seems to have been in 2009. This article was created in March of this year. It was declined at AfC three times, then the editor moved it from draft to main space. Lamona (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Bolgar

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

Poorly sourced stub, fails GNG. Wire723 (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Wire723 (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete need more significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 13:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this article, though I am pretty certain I was not logged in at the time, and I completely agree that it should be deleted. Wikipedia's rules on notability have obviously tightened up a *lot* in the last two decades, and the site does not need anorak trivia with no notability beyond that small and self-perpetuating niche - it fills me with embarrassment, the stuff I thought was acceptable here two decades ago. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andreína Álvarez

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

She still needs much more experience as a recognized and outstanding actress, page without relevance required Alon9393 (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, Theatre, Entertainment, and Venezuela. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the WP:ENT. Xegma(talk) 03:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. --NoonIcarus (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man Dhaga Dhaga Jodte Nava

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

Outside of the SOCKing, the series is not notable. References are non-bylined snippets and churnalism or NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the top rated series on the Marathi television right now... It has enough reliable sources to meet notable guidelines... (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2024

Can you provide the reliable sources that show this? Also, I think the "we" in your edit summary is telling of this. You may want to go to that page and address the accusation directly. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who "yeu aga maj" is. I've been contributing information to Wikipedia for the past two years and my focus is solely on sharing content. Rajubhaiyya (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Star_Pravah#Drama_series: not opposed to keep but opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Star_Pravah#Drama_series. Sources are poor and paid promotion with nothing to help with notability. RangersRus (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funhit Mein Jaari

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

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 16:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Sony_SAB#Comedy_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coach Trip series 8

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

Has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade. No objection if anyone merges it to Coach trip but it does not seem notable enough to deserve its own article Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SPLITLIST applies. Every of the 18 series has a page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:NOTDATABASE An endless list of nothing. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Malhan

AfDs for this article:

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

Runner up of the show and doing lots of music video is not enough for notability. Xegma(talk) 04:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, Internet, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not only a runner up of a show, but a very popular indian youtuber too. Columbidae5 (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stay, you have reliable sources The Times India, The Hindustan News, News18, among others, it also has encyclopedic development and maintains relevance in what it does as a video blogger. Alon9393 (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Juliana

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

Bit part actor. Lots of social media driven puff piece, clickbait and paid placement article but fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Medicine, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:ENT. Xegma(talk) 17:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xegma: How does the subject pass WP:ENT exactly?— Preceding unsigned comment added by scope creep (talk • contribs)

They have worked in multiple films and television shows. Xegma(talk) 04:44, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinch to Punch

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

This lacks WP:SIGCOV even the article knows it limited information has surfaced online. Oricon yield no result, Natalie yield no result, even the Japanese article has one source, the only thing I could find that is RS is from the Media Arts Database Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Anime and manga and Japan. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating this related articles with the same reason as above

Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Keep) and improve with sources from the Japanese WP, that has a lot considering it's a 1969-1970 series! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and Transportation. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(My initial !vote above is about Zen-chan Tsū-chan). I hadn't seen this was a bundled nom when I !voted through the assisted script. Procedural keep. These series have very little in common. And it's hard to discuss and improve the 3 at the same time without long tedious explanations and comments about what precisely is relevant to each case. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC) (The nominator indicates they nominated the pages "with the same reason" but the 2nd article has >10 references to reliable newspapers on JaWP, for example.)[reply]
I'll just seperate the 2nd one. Thanks for pointing out Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 13:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my mention of ’the 2nd article’ is unclear: for the record, I mean Zen-chan Tsū-chan. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects to the respective networks should also be considered.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see some way to keep the content, and suggest a merge to Fuji Television. For the ones which are made by Fuji, which doesn't include Zen-chan (please, please, don't do combined nominations of disparate articles!). Not sure about Zen-chan, as like @Mushy Yank this came up as a single article for me and I hadn't given it any thought before starting this comment
On Pinch to Punch it's unfortunate that there is so little secondary material out there although it seems even the primary material has been lost. This attests to its importance in the context of the development of Anime. This article could be perfectly happy as a stub, verified by what little information is out there, but it's hard to make a case for IAR on this. Oblivy (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with developing these articles would be our inability to access archives which would have information about an anime series from 50 years ago. Hard to imagine that Pinch and Punch, a series with 156 episodes airing on a national TV channel, wouldn't be notable with access to the correct archives. If someone is interested, perhaps Fuji or the National Film Archive of Japan can help? I would personally either keep or merge the articles at a minimum. DCsansei (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus here. But I don't see any support for Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes lack of WP:SIGCOV.

Note - maximum sources are databases. and it's an enough reason to delete. Xegma(talk) 13:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is not true. References to Japanese newspapers of the time on the JA WP page. See my comments above, thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 01:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's multi-paragraph coverage in this book at 634, less extensive at 132, 146, and 268. Oblivy (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham TV Award for Outstanding Performance in a Drama Series

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

It's hard to decide if I will draftify this article but this feels like it's too soon to have the a standalone article. The award and the 1st edition of the award itself is notable but this specific category as of now, seems no notable. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating this article for the same reason:

Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a WP:SPLITLIST or redirect to the main page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gotham Awards#Gotham TV Awards for now; assuming that the next ceremony includes these categories, these lists would no longer copy information from a single article and could be recreated then. I would also support redirecting Gotham TV Award for Outstanding Performance in a Comedy Series for the same reasons. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 05:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep has source but need more sources. Xegma(talk) 13:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSJP-LD

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV, Fox affiliation notwithstanding. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Puerto Rico. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Fox affiliates. No sources, no article and all but the Fox affiliation does bring in an argument they should become one with the Fox affiliation list articles. --Danubeball (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a Merge suggestion but you must provide a link to the preferred target article. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Math Lady

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

There is no extra info here that isn't already present on Renata Sorrah#Meme. I propose that this page be redirected there. Babar Suhail (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Babar Suhail (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough WP:GNG for a separate article & potential for expansion. As a Brazilian, I can confirm that there are multiple other sources available in Portuguese that can be added to expand the article. Skyshiftertalk 15:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I would believe you, it'd be much better if you linked them. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you share some of these sources? My own search wasn't entirely fruitless but the articles I did find don't add much; certainly nothing that couldn't just be added to Renata Sorrah#Meme. GhostOfNoMeme 12:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for "Nazaré Confusa" reveals dozens of sources. Some examples are [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. It is also mentioned in multiple scholarly articles [10]. Skyshiftertalk 18:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That's a greater number of sources than I had been able to find (my Google search for "Nazaré Confusa" was returning completely off-topic results by page 4). I got zero hits on Google News; I hadn't even thought to check Google Scholar, given the topic — good call. I've changed my !vote to Keep after reviewing the links. GhostOfNoMeme 03:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Mathematics, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: AfDs are for deletion not for discussing if a redirect is appropriate. That should have been made on the talk page of the article. And only if such a discussion had not allowed to reach any consensus should we have been discussing this here. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, it's not unusual for a nominator to propose a Redirect or Merge instead of a Deletion. In fact, it's pretty common so I don't understand why you are scolding this editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sorry if I sounded agressive but I mentioned this because if they don’t wish deletion or think it’s a fair or even possible outcome, they should not open an AfD but rather discuss the merge on the merge discussion they can open and the redirect on the talk page, or boldly redirect the page and explain why. If my advice was wrong, I apologise. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD-R: If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Only applies to redirecting. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but please, I must insist, and quote your quote:"If the change is disputed via a reversion": was this the case here? and did I mean anything else in my initial comment? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's Math Lady, she deserves it. That being consensus before effectively blanking a popular thing on the internet. This is just WP:BOLD all over. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea of what you mean by that. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:04, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the subject's popularity, BLARing might be controversial. In accordance with BOLD, such actions should be discussed. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. But that was and is exactly my point: why take (potentially notable or apparently popular) pages to Afds if you suggest a redirect i.e. if you think a redirect is to be considered? Just ASK competent users. Discussions can happen ON TALK PAGES OF ARTICLES: that is why they have been created. USE TALK PAGES not AfDs. (I’m not shouting, nor upset, mere emphasis). Thanks again. I’ll leave this discussion now. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, AfDs suggest redirects all the time. It's pretty much just accepted. See: Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep/Should we permit deletion nominations advocating for a redirect? which ended in: Allowing the nominator to advocate redirect is current practice, and this debate shows no consensus to change that. The case is also well made that this has obvious utility in establishing an unambiguous consensus that an article should not exist in its own right, even if a redirect is appropriate.

On the other hand: There is a clear numerical and policy-weighed consensus that AfD is a right venue to seek for redirect(s), which have been challenged. The first attempt at redirection ought be directly attempted per our principles of being bold. – from this discussion. Nevertheless, deciding to head straight to AfD is arguably itself WP:BOLD! Regardless, it's a fairly regular occurrence that rarely gets questioned or challenged. I don't see the harm in it, myself. GhostOfNoMeme 13:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Am I therefore correct to assume that there is no consensus regarding the question? I apologise if I was wrong or too harsh but my personal view remains unchanged: AfDs take time and efforts and involve many or at least various users; they are limited in time; my point is that they should be used for deletion and deletion only or at least only if deletion is considered a fair outcome by the nominator. Talk pages exist for a reason and if a rough consensus is reached to redirect or if a redirect is explained and unchallenged on the talk page (or boldly performed, and not challenged nor reverted, obviously), AfDs should not even be considered (imho). Thanks again, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Candidates for BLAR often have little attention and little page watching. Combined with the absence of a categorizing template to attract foreign attention, I expect many such talk page proposals to have little participation.
To me and many others, BLAR and merging are just deletion with extra steps: slapping a redirect on it and, in the latter case, adding content to the merge target. I don't see how that takes so much more effort, why it should take unlimited time, or how the core question on whether the article can stand alone is any different. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Films/television/music..and Web etc have categorized templates; and I beg to differ: AfDs take more effort, or at least a different kind of efforts, in particular because they are limited in time (I am not saying they should not), and the core question is not the same (should we delete this#can we redirect this?). Also, people on the talk page of an article are in general more competent regarding the topic and are generally there with the idea of improving the page (and with more knowledge or more interest for the topic) (with time), not getting rid of potential crap (in a hurry). Different mindsets (in general; obviously the same persons might show up at both venues). In the present case, if this had been discussed before, that would have saved us some time, I think, as this will be kept and should not imv have come here and wouldn’t have if it had been discussed thoroughly with knowledgeable competent willing users on the talk page. Also taking the page to Afd might be disheartening for the creator and casts a shadow of doubt on the page, it is not a random let alone insignificant maintenance process and this shows through the tag (during the 8 days or 1 month of the discussion) and through the Old Afd template (unexperienced readers might see it and think ’Hey, look, wait, they say this might be rubbish’) A talk page where redirect is discussed offers none of these shortcomings, at least in my opinion as reader. Anyway, maybe this is not the place for such a long discussion, and thank you for your input and time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even considering Portuguese-language sources I was able to find, coverage doesn't seem significant enough that it can't, per nom, simply go into Renata Sorrah#Meme. A standalone article is unwarranted. GhostOfNoMeme 12:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Skyshifter kindly replied to share the Portuguese-language sources she had referenced some days earlier, and after reading through them I'm changing my vote. Her sources are more numerous than I had been able to find myself, and a majority appear to be WP:RS. The coverage is more than passing mention and the focus is on the meme itself; not wholly separate from Renata Sorrah, naturally, but sufficiently so in my view to establish separate notability. The Google Scholar search was an interesting avenue I hadn't thought to explore. With WP:GNG satisfied I think the article should be kept. GhostOfNoMeme 02:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 23:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sky's linked sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali Phogat

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 15:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Women, Television, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage in reliable sources, including BBC and The Hindu, and bylined articles in other media, indicating her notability as social media personality, politician, or related to her death. She meets the requirements, in my opinion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Goa. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi M S Hassan. Thanks for reviewing this article. However Wikipedia platform is created with principles and articles of public interest which has notability and I feel this article has. Request you to withdraw this notice.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank.Thanks Mushy Yank for his opinion.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – news coverage appears to be only connected to her death. As tragic as that event was, WP:BLPCRIME as well as WP:BLP1E applies. --bonadea contributions talk 11:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Lee Dark

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

This article is based on interviews or publicity material in which the subject makes various claims of extraordinary musical ability and success. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject for these claims. gnu 57 18:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sexuality and gender, and Wales. gnu 57 18:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I have just looked on Nexis which I have access to through my university, and there are sources on there for at least part of the article. I'd be happy to go through and resolve the sourcing issues on these pages with those sources (I am going to do this now regardless). It would seem a shame to delete the article with those options around. Flatthew (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly a number of claims in the article are not based in reality, but the article is worth a re-do. There is something here, even if it's obviously not what is outlined. Flatthew (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that a number of otherwise reliable publications appear to be taking the subject's claims at face value. The 50,000 albums sold is almost certainly false. The famous relatives are unverifiable. The audio tracks on YouTube attributed to Dark are actually studio recordings by other singers (e.g., [11][12]). I have found no indication that the subject has ever performed live, in any setting. gnu 57 10:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s an interesting point that otherwise reliable sources interview a subject and take their claims at face value when perhaps they aren’t accurate. I noticed in a Wales on Sunday article I found it was written that she performed with a band called Enigma, but there are a couple bands with that name neither of which list her as a member. But that doesn’t mean she didn’t perform with them. There’s also a CD she released but now that I think about it I couldn’t find it. So while my recommendation was ‘’’keep’’’ based on WP:RS guidance, I do have pause… Nnev66 (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough coverage in WP:RS for WP:GNG. Nnev66 (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and improve. I see that there are already edits after the AfD nomination, the article may need further improvement. Sources seem to exist to prove WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Prof.PMarini (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement about the adequacy of the sources. An assessment would be helpful of new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although some of the claims are not well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Grade (South Park)

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

There are several sides to this. But firstly, an episode of a television series is not inherently notable simply because it has aired. I don't find any pass on WP:GNG for this eleventh episode of season 4 of South Park. Secondly, there is 4th Grade (South Park episode) which currently redirects to South Park season 4, which makes this title a duplicate of the former. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Comics and animation, and Colorado. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every other episode of South Park with the exception of this one had a Wikipedia article, which is why this one was created. For some reason, for this single episode in particular, it just had a redirect to the season 4 page rather than an article. Retaining the article for this episode and fixing the redirect behavior to point to this rather than the season 4 article is more consistent with how every other episode in the series is handled. Onyxqk (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just updated 4th Grade (South Park episode) to redirect to the article for the episode to fix that issue. Onyxqk (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also included a Production section in the article that cites an interview printed in a newspaper at the time about the episode's conception. This aligns the article more with the existing Wikipedia articles on South Park episodes. Onyxqk (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom -- no inherent notability. The three references used here aren't in-depth covreage of this specific eposide, so they don't help the subject meet WP:GNG. WP:OTHERTHINGS doesn't help, and there's no requirement for completeness. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:OTHERTHINGS: 'If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency.' Onyxqk (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every South Park character has an article... – The Grid (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every South Park character has an article, but every South Park episode (except possibly this one) has an article. The example mentioned in WP:OTHERTHINGS is about applying the same treatment to articles that fall into an identical category (whether it's Star Wars main characters or South Park episodes). Onyxqk (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PLOT and failing to meet threshold of Wikipedia:Notability. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 01:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to South Park season 4#ep59~~. The title of an episode is a reasonable search term, so redirecting is a better option than deleting, but the current article has too little coverage – in the current references, the only coverage of this specific episode is too brief to justify an entire article. More sources such as episode reviews from notable sites would be needed to keep the article, though I couldn't find any. (From a quick glance, a lot of other season 4 episodes could probably be redirected as well, so having this article because every other episode has an article is a bad argument.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing stance to keep per the sources below, though I stand by my note that many other season 4 articles are in poor condition and could be redirected (and since this episode was a mid-season premiere of sorts, it likely earned more attention than those episodes). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Morrow, Terry (2000-11-08). "'South Park' still delivers punch". Knoxville News Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "There's a renewed energy in co-creator Trey Parker's script. Even the opening credits, with the splash of explosions and the techno-laden theme song, punctuate that the show, with 62 episodes now behind it, is not resting on its profitable laurels. The fourth grade brings a new teacher, a Janet Reno look-alike in need of a bra and whose name can't be printed in a family newspaper. ...As "South Park" storytelling goes, this one is fairly straightforward and very funny. This opener is an indication that "South Park" hasn't lost its snap. Parker and co-creator Matt Stone still care passionately for the cartoon, and it is obvious. At this point, many shows—especially live-action comedies—have run out of ideas. But "South Park" retains its rebellious spirit. The fourth grade, it seems, will be very good for the show."
2. Werts, Diane (2000-11-08). "The Gang Forges Into Fourth Grade". Newsday. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "All the tangy ingredients of writer-director Parker's patented pop culture stew are there. Cartman and the gang forge into fourth grade amid intrigue, taking in "Star Trek's" time-travel babble, the explosive suspense of "Speed" and former teacher Mr. Garrison's spiritual journey through "the tree of insight" toward his suppressed gay side. The usual nasty-boy word and eye play return in the person of oddly endowed new teacher Ms. Choksondik. There's even a rockin' new opening that elevates wheelchair pal Timmy to full-fledged regular status. But the pieces don't fit together quite as brightly as usual, making the whole somewhat less than the sum of its individually clever parts."
3. Brown, Joel (2000-11-08). "Television Review - New season of 'South Park' goes fourth as the kids get promoted". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03.
  The review notes: "As always, there's a demented kind of uplift here. Hypocrites are skewered, personal growth is encouraged and Timmy is treated with a rough fellowship that may be more politically correct than the show's creators OR its detractors would want to admit. Still this is a show that will send a lot of people screaming from the room. ... There's nothing in this episode quite as taboo-busting or as funny as the explicit love affair between Saddam Hussein and Satan in the "South Park" movie and one episode last season. But there's still enough off-color humor, graphic language and generally twisted mentality on display to give Bill Bennett a cerebral hemorrhage."
4. Saunders, Michael; Sullivan, Jim (2000-11-08). "An upgrade on 'South Park'". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Tonight marks the start of a new season for the boys and girls at "South Park," the twisted, animated brainchild of Matt Stone and Trey Parker that airs on Comedy Central. Kyle, Cartman, and their pals enter fourth grade and are thrust into the horrific clutches of Ms. Choksondik, who forces cursive writing upon them. They lament "it's the end of innocence" and immediately persuade two "Star Trek"-freak college geeks to build a time machine to send them back to third grade."
5. Kronke, David (2000-11-08). "The Hype". Daily News of Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03.
  The review notes: "South Park returns tonight, with Kyle, Cartman and company promoted—somehow—to the fourth grade, where their new teacher, Miss Choksondik (no, it's not very subtle), is a fearsome creature with really, really pendulous breasts and a floating right pupil. It's bad enough for the guys to get nostalgic about third grade, and before long, they're building a time machine, which unsurprisingly creates chaos, and not much after that, right after the rather belated and lame "Speed" parody, Kenny dies, and a brand-new catch phrase is born."
6. Morrow, Terry. "Kids of 'South Park' Growing Up Slowly". The Journal Gazette. Scripps Howard News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03.
  The article notes: ""South Park: The Fourth Grade Years" (10 p.m. today on Comedy Central, Comcast Channel 65) will follow Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman into a new grade, with a new teacher, as creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone find more playground for the boys to trod."
7. Bianco, Robert (2000-11-08). "Critic's corner". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2024-09-03. Retrieved 2024-09-03.
  The review notes: "Those foul-talking kids from South Park (Comedy Central, 10 p.m. ET/PT) face the end of innocence as they are promoted to the fourth grade. Happily, age has not dimmed their ability to make you laugh helplessly, or to leave you gasping at their robust tastelessness."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow South Park: The Fourth Grade Years to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are these "significant coverage"? They're all capsule reviews. The longest seems to be the Kronke article, which is just a plot summary. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Boston Globe article includes an interview with the creators about the episode and is several paragraphs long (more than solely a plot summary). The Boston Herald article is a review that is also several paragraphs long. The Newsday article also includes a review of the episode including its downsides (rather than just summarizing). Will update the article on the episode to include a 'Reception' section with the coverage in these reliable sources. Onyxqk (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Included a Reception section featuring reviews from three reliable sources and included information from the interview with the Boston Globe in the Production section. Onyxqk (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable secondary sources identified in this discussion which together enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reception section added by Onyxgk. Toughpigs (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to multiple reliable sources. Also see this for a comparable discussion. Stanley Joseph Wilkins (talk) 10:55, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the listed sources above. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Desert Song (Max Liebman Presents)

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

Declined twice at WP:AFC moved by creator to main space, no evidence of notability, just listings and passing mentions. Theroadislong (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. Theroadislong (talk) 12:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: https://playbill.com/article/the-dvd-shelf-a-connecticut-yankee-desert-song-four-weddings-and-a-funeral-honeymoon-in-vegas-and-more-com-181767 ; one paragraph in Thomas McCavour's 2020 The Gayety & Other Stories ; various mentions in reliable books, so that a redirect to the programme or to the operetta is totally warranted in my opinion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC) + https://www.reformer.com/local-news/more-vintage-tv-musicals-from-the-50s/article_9fbb2418-386a-52ae-858c-8488a27fea3c.html (pretty slow to open but significant)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JOJ WAU

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

Probably not notable. I could only find this: [13], [14], [15]. This probably does not constitute significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Slovakia. Janhrach (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TV JOJ. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with redirecting. Even though these are sister channels, TV JOJ is the primary one, and its article provides some information that may be of interest to ones looking up JOJ WAU. Janhrach (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not sure about the merits of the proposed redirect as the article lists that target page (TV JOJ) as the sister station to this one. Any additional thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Markíza Dajto

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

I previously PRODded the article with the rationale being "Not notable - no in-depth independent coverage". It was deprodded by Mushy Yank with a note to look at the Slovak article. There indeed are some sources, but the only claims they make about this channel are:

that it became available on DVB-T (with some technical details), and
that Towercom resumed broadcasting it.

These two claims hardly constitute significant coverage, therefore I am renominating this article for deletion, this time at AfD. Janhrach (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Slovakia. Janhrach (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:SPLITLIST of Markiza, a major Slovak network.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not a list. It is an ordinary article about the channel – it is list-like because of its low quality. The article on Markíza also shouldn't be list-like; it even carries the "not a directory" improvement template. Janhrach (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPLITLIST is not only about stricto sensu list articles, but anyway, yes, the article is a list. It has an introduction but it is very much in the list format, as yourself admit. As for the rest, feel free to discuss it on the article TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why would this article count as SPLITLIST. The article Markíza is about a different, sister, channel; not about the company (at least primarily).

Also, quoting from WP:NLIST: "Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables." Janhrach (talk) 06:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Markíza as ATD. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amel Rachedi

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

Not finding sufficient WP:SIGCOV of this individual who "presents" a show on her own Instagram channel to meet WP:GNG. She doesn't appear to meet any SNG either. There's just this story in WalesOnline; the rest is tabloid coverage excluded as SIGCOV under WP:SBST, or it's in unreliable sources like Forbes contributors. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Entertainment. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Some coverage in a newspaper from Jamaica [16]. With the Wales newspaper, just barely enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Television, Internet, England, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Catfurball (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no firm consensus. Also, participants, avoid "per X" comments which are practically valueless.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep coverage available, see first comment --ProudWatermelon (talk) 01:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, ProudWatermelon, are you ignoring my advice or making a joke? Sigh. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what ? ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess rewriting the same argument as more value, sure ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the "Sigh" was just unnecessarily rude and provocative ProudWatermelon (talk) 07:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think "sigh" was rude and provocative? Compared to names I've been calles on this platform, it seems polite to me. It is just expressing exasperation, it's not about you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. A discussion of specific sources and whether or not they help establish notability would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. The Jamaica Gleaner piece reads as promotional rather than as journalism. Sandstein 06:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Short Life of Anne Frank

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

The film does not appear to be significant by the rules of Wikipedia WP:MOVIE. No detailed coverage in authoritative references, no reviews, no awards.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, History, and Netherlands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Anne Frank Unbound: Media, Imagination, Memory (Indiana University Press, 2012) has coverage about the film. See also: https://www.statesboroherald.com/life/anne-frank-a-history-for-today/ or https://www.deseret.com/2014/4/7/20538955/explore-the-world-of-anne-frank-no-need-to-go-to-holland/ for example. Can also be redirected to List of films about Anne Frank -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 of 3 of the above sources appear sufficiently in-depth to count--the Stateboro Herald being the exception. No objection to an editorial discussion about merging this into List of films about Anne Frank, but I do not believe the sourcing is so bad that a forced merge or redirect from AfD is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cultural depictions of Anne Frank without prejudice, as an improper SPINOFF. While there is no problem with the notability of this film, i.e. the intro is mistaken, the write up is short and entirely missing at the parent level. We need to fix that first before a detailed (!) article will be justified. gidonb (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Cultural depictions of Anne Frank would indeed be a good choice here, since the page itself is a little skimpy as to standalone notability. TH1980 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to the sources already in the article, there are reviews in the Library Journal, the School Library Journal, The Video Librarian and the Library Media Connection. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The ProQuest links above are capsule reviews (a single paragraph, at most). So even if we had 100 of them, there would not be enough content to substantiate a standalone article. I.e., it's missing the "significance" part of the general notability guideline. These are periodicals that review materials indiscriminately to advise librarians on what content to acquire. Everything that these capsule reviews say can be summarized within a short blurb in Cultural depictions of Anne Frank. The other news sources above similarly do not describe the topic in depth. czar 01:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Shorter reviews carry more weight if there's a lot of them, and there seems to be a decent amount here. A non-terrible article could be made from this if anyone wished to try. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistani animated television series

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

An unsourced list of non-notable work does not really meet WP:NLIST imv. and since it includes only a handful of entries, it's make sense to delete it. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan 🤓☝🏻 11:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A rather standard list. Can be very easily sourced individually or with things like https://english.aaj.tv/news/330375751/pti-calls-off-rally-as-islamabad-red-zone-sealed-schools-closed ; https://tribune.com.pk/story/409963/animatedly-yours etc. There's no "TV animation in Pakistan" article so a list is suitable. Could also be considered a WP:SPLITLIST of List of Pakistani television series so I find no real reason for deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So If there isn’t an article on TV animation in Pakistan, probably due to insufficient coverage, then having a list on the topic, which also lacks coverage and primarily includes non-notable work, seems unnecessary and fails to meet WP:NLIST imv. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 18:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a notable list for now without prejudice to recreating at some point with reliable sources. jwtmsqeh (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

Television proposed deletions