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

History of Saturday Night Live (1975–1980)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/History of Saturday Night Live (1975–1980) (2nd nomination)

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

I am also nominating the other pages in this SNL history series:

These articles are rife with original research, unsourced and poorly sourced statements, useless cast trivia, and redundant cast lists that are already located in their respective season articles. Most of the pages segment everything by season anyway and are not the broader look at the show history that they are supposed to be. Several of them have had cleanup tags for almost a decade. They are rarely edited. And they are arbitrarily segmented by five year increments for no specific reason; this appears to be a random decision made 20 years ago in 2004 that nobody has questioned since then.

Myself and another editor have been working on a successor for these pages; it's currently at Draft:History of Saturday Night Live. It functions as the broader look at show history that these nine pages were supposed to be. It is not just redundant of the existing season pages; it makes extensive use of reliable sources and is the broader look at show history. I propose that this new page replace these existing pages. There are many benefits to this: consolidating editor efforts on one page, ditching the arbitrary separation, less maintenance effort required across multiple pages, etc.

I have already merged any non-duplicate info from these old pages into the appropriate SNL season articles. There will be nothing lost by deleting/redirecting them to the new page. I announced this plan about a week ago on the SNL talk page and have received no opposition at this point. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Saturday Night Live, until they can be merged to the upcoming article about SNL history. Far too much original research has been inserted into SNL topics in general. Looking forward to the fix. Binksternet (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thank you for your reply, just a note that I've already gone through and merged anything noteworthy to specific season articles that's not covered in the new history article; happy to redirect if someone wants to independently verify this though. May also potentially be useful to preserve the page histories too. StewdioMACK (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aamna Malick

AfDs for this article:

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

Closed as no consensus in June of this year. I did not see the discussion at the time but just followed the trail of a now blocked IP editor. There are currently two sources on the page. The first is this which just mentions her as being in the film. The other is this which does the same (doesn't even mention the role) and is also unreliable under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. I did a WP:BEFORE and found a lot of tabloid press, brief mentions, and unreliable sources. A redirect may be an appropriate WP:ATD if someone can recommend a good target. Will ping previous participants below. CNMall41 (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Notifying previous participants due to the last discussion being recent - @Saqib:, @Dclemens1971:, @Mushy Yank:, @KH-1:, @Otbest: --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My opinion remains the same after a second look at the article: the coverage consists either of tabloid coverage (see WP:SBST) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs; no significant coverage and thus no pass of WP:GNG. Acting credits don't appear to be significant enough for WP:NACTOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with multiple significant (not lead but not minor) roles in notable productions. A good target for a redirect might be List of Pakistani actresses but I personally cannot see why a standalone page shouldn't be kept. Still, a Redirect would be better than deletion, to which I am opposed. Note: her name is sometimes spelled Amna (with one A) She also received coverage for her private life/break in her career. Her presence among the housemates of the reality show Tamasha indicates she can be considered a celebrity (and although famous is not the same as notable, one can reasonably argue that she's famous for being an actress and that it is therefore probably fair to find her notable). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We still need significant coverage. Are you able to provide links to some sources providing such?--CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, WP:NBIO also states meeting WP:NACTOR does not guarantee that a subject should be included.— Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I nominated this BLP for deletion previously, but it was kept. I still hold the same opinion and support this nom. Fails NACTOR as well GNG. I believe, the previous AFD was kept based on the number of keep votes, not policy-based arguments. This time, I hope that mere keep votes will not be considered without solid policy-based reasoning and anyone supporting 'keep' should provide sourcing. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:52, 28 August 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: [1], [2], [3]. 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]

Judoon

AfDs for this article:

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

The Judoon seem to lack significant coverage discussing the species as a whole. I found very little searching in Books and Scholar, with Books only turning up spin-off material from the series and Scholar only pulling trivial mentions or mentions of the episode "Fugitive of the Judoon," which only discuss the episode and not the species. News sources have a few hits, but they're mostly ROUTINE coverage (A character is returning, here's a few guides so you know who they are) and even then there's very few of them and the bulk of them are just plot summary with no significant reception of analysis of their role. I don't believe there's enough here for the Judoon to act as a standalone article. A viable AtD is a redirect to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, where most of the relevant information regarding the Judoon is already present. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:59, 26 August 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 Television. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a well-written nomination encompassing both BEFORE and ATDs. Jclemens (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Eaton (actor)

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

Non-notable actor; fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NACTOR. Roles have been minor parts. Sources are either primary (the actor's Instagram page) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of an upcoming supporting role in a single episode of an Outlander spinoff. BEFORE search turns up no WP:SIGCOV to support GNG. Contested PROD so bringing to AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United Kingdom. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:42, 26 August 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]
Redirect to Markíza as ATD. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Schuster

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

Only cites one source of dubious reliability. Nothing else found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Peyton Place (TV series) where she is already mentioned; there does not appear to be a "characters of" article. Jclemens (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per WP:ATD. She's mentioned at the main article, and editors can decide how much she needs to be discussed (ideally with verifiable sources). Shooterwalker (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Murshid (TV series)

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

References are unreliable as they are churnalism and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Tagged for notability hoping better sources would be introduced but tag was removed without improvement. The only bylined sources I found were this which is churnalism based off a press release (there are a few others you will find in a WP:BEFORE, and this which is three paragraphs and about one of the actors (only a paragraph about the series). Likely WP:TOOSOON since it hasn't even been released. CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I did attempt to draftify which was likely the best scenario while waiting for the release, but the draftification was also disputed. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_ZEE5_original_programming#2024: notable cast. The series is to be launched in 4 days, so really not opposed to keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The web series have efficient reputed news media links. There is no promotional materail. There is no reason to delete it. Please keep the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshadkhanwriter (talk • contribs) 19:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Name Is Mangamma

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

No evidence for notability under WP:GNG or WP:TVSERIES; coverage is limited to tabloid journalism and thus not WP:SIGCOV per WP:SBST. Proposing a redirect to List of programmes broadcast by Zee Tamil (India) Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Tamil_(India)#Soap_operas: notable cast; so opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Tamil_(India)#Soap_operas. Page fails notability for TV series with poor and unreliable sources and no significant coverage in reliable secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing significant has happened to the series, the article has but very basic information of a tv series. None of the sources currently cited are significant coverages, they are all superficial. It fails WP:GNG, also WP:NOTDB. Nihonjinatny (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Via Vision Entertainment

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is a home entertainment company, distributing television and film on DVD and Blue-Ray. A WP:BEFORE found no IS and RS to qualify WP:NCORP nobility guidelines. Was deleted in AfD before and rejected 7 times on AfC. Suggest to salt. Cassiopeia talk 11:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Entertainment, Companies, and Australia. Cassiopeia talk 11:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP as nom says, no reliable independent sources. Article could be created by the company itself or someone related; account appears to have been made specifically to create this article. StewdioMACK (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KHFD

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

Looking at a web search, the airport appears to be the overwhelmingly primary topic. The disambiguation can be replaced by a redirect and a hatnote at the airport article (a previous attempt at redirecting the article has been reverted by the page creator). 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 02:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 02:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Transportation. Skynxnex (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of multiverse worlds (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

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

Recently moved from draftspace which is primarily a WP:CONTENTFORK of WP:FANCRUFT contents covered at the more dedicated Multiverse (Marvel Cinematic Universe) article. Majority of the contents are unsourced or poorly sourced, and much of the universe "Earth" designations are vacant. This does not warrant an article nor does a separate list meet notability in its own right. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, Television, and Entertainment. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this AfD should probably be withdrawn given that the article in question has been shifted back to draft space. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Good point. I'll withdraw this, though I will note this should not be moved back to the mainspace unless there is consensus to do so. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force. Reason: Relevant taskforce. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Entirely redundant content fork off the current Multiverse article that offers no new information for readers. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's Comment: The original creator User:MarioProtIV moved it back to draftspace after this AfD was initiated. Pinging here for comment. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Keep I did not give (a)nnihilation97 permission to move this to main space as it is far from finished. Secondly, I fail to see how this is FANCRUFT, giving it explicitly is within the realm of MCU canon. If you’re so bold on deleting it, then you should delete List of DC Multiverse worlds since it has much of the same content that you’re claiming is non-notable. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that much of this list is repeated of the main MCU multiverse article and universe names are not confirmed. It is far too early for this list. I have no problems with a general DC list (and don't edit those articles), my rationale is based on this article's quality. If you want the contents preserved, I would suggest retainning it in your sandbox, especially if you don't want others working on it and to prevent something like this from happening again. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but given the extent of the universes we’ve explored so far in the MCU and confirmed side-realities, it would not hurt to have a general list of all the ones the MCU has shown. We have an extensive character list over several pages that are short blurbs about the characters. Readers should be aware of what other realities the MCU has shown aside from the prominent ones. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:58, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are adequately covered at Multiverse (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Notable realities for the time being. That article has not become long enough to the point where a split is warranted, nor are the universes themselves that more notable than the MCU multiverse itself. Maybe wait until after Secret Wars to see how this all develops in terms of the multiverse. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the move of this article to Draft space which was out-of-order and improper once this AFD was started. You can make an argument for Draftification. Trailblazer101, do you still want to withdraw your nomination or let this AFD continue? If it is closed due to a nominator's withdrawal, it would close as a Speedy Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, I would still push for deletion. If anyone wants content from this, they can repurpose it in their sandbox. I just don't see the need for this anytime soon. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This was never meant to be published until I felt it was ready so deleting the page because someone decided to move it without notifying me or anyone else it is a bit unfair, especially since the revision history will be deleted. This should be moved back to my userspace as it initially originated from, if that’s okay. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Multiverse (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Notable_realities - The main article already has the same overview that this article has, and already lists all of the actually notable examples in the appropriate section. As the content here that is not already present on the main article are all minor, non-notable examples, there is no real need to split this into a separate list. Redirecting would also preserve the history of this article. Rorshacma (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I can go with that as well, so I support redirecting then. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 05:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except there is nothing of value to preserve for the mainspace with this content, which is really just an unneeded visual table of what is already in the main article. There is no merit in retaining the contents of this list. Trailblazer101 (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per Rorshacma. This is one topic, not two. There is already an article about this. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move without redirect to User:MarioProtIV's userspace as the creator so there can be a continuous article's history and they can continue the development of it in their userspace (as they have requested above too). A new redirect can be created to Multiverse (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Notable_realities per Roshacma though I don't think it's necessary at this time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obvious fancruft that only interests a particular audience; this is not Fandom/Wikia. The creator can request for undeletion at WP:REFUND if this AfD closes as delete, but please keep in mind that draftspace and userspace are not for the indefinite hosting of material unsuitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By this logic, as I explained before, List of DC Multiverse worlds should be deleted as well under the same reasons. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. This discussion is not about that list. The fact that this list does not meet notability guidelines means it should be deleted, and there is no point in retaining content that will not meet the mainspace criteria anytime soon. If you think the DC one should be addressed, that would have to be a separate discussion. Mario, you are always welcome to copy the contents and save them in your sandbox, although this list will ultimately not meet GNG and is completely unnecessary with the current MCU multiverse article. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have come to the decision that as the author of the article I want to redirect this to Multiverse (Marvel Cinematic Universe)#Notable realities. Is this enough to have this closed, or is my saying here not valid until the AfD closes? Just curious. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space. There is enough content there and there might be RS that list and talk about each universe, or there might not be. There is 6 months for anyone to work out and find out. Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will Bailey

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

No evidence of passing WP:NFICT – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu, he was on the main cast of a major show and has an article for that reason (as do the rest of the main characters and a few characters who appeared recurringly but still have an article). Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still needs significant coverage in independent secondary sources – Muboshgu (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu, will check some out. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The characted does not pass sognificant coverage as a proof of notability for a standalone article. There doesn't seem be enough reason to write more than what is already contained in the profile information on the Cast and Characters section of the The West Wing article is enough for now. Prof.PMarini (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Prof.PMarini. Doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. A redirect to the cast and characters section could be an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leverett Ball

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

Twice declined at WP:AFC, but it was created anyway. Cursory search for sources doesn't reveal much, although as a non-sports-watching-person I may be missing something here (I probably am...I usually do). Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Radio, Television, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article should have never been created. Catfurball (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just a minor sideline reporter at best. Fails the GNG; lacking in reliable sources giving significant coverage to the subject. Ravenswing 17:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST. What we have here is WP:ADMASQ for his podcast. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV is available to meet the WP:GNG. Appears to be WP:PROMO for a non-notable BLP. Let'srun (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. That all seven references show up as orange or red on the source highlighter tool is also very telling. Left guide (talk) 02:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hatting sock stuff Left guide (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Keep Leverett Ball is a Sideline reporter and podcaster. He has had multiple interviews with former professional athletes. Many sources and content were added after the WP:AFC decline. Ball has multiple sources with articles strictly covering him. The article about his podcast was written and published by Yahoo Finance, a credible source, which is referenced on his article as reference 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoobSaibot69 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— NoobSaibot69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Thebirdlover (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC) [reply]

- It's a press release. —Cryptic 22:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore, that source merely name-drops the article subject in passing, so it fails WP:SIGCOV to boot. Left guide (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the fact that multiple sources and plenty of extra content were added after the WP:AFC decline, Leverett Ball has significant credibility in the world of broadcasting through his ESPN work and celebrity interviews with Michael Strahan and Coolio, which can be verified through his article using reference number one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencemball (talk • contribs) 00:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Laurencemball (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Thebirdlover (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He has significant credibility with people who follow sports through both being on ESPN, cohosting a podcast with an NFL player, and conducting interviews with Hall of Fame athletes. Laurencemball (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable, No Reliable Sources, Fails GNG. Untamed1910 (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an editor can furnish links to in-depth significant coverage of Ball in multiple reliable sources that are completely independent of Ball. The influx of poorly reasoned arguments to "keep" by SPAs who are likely sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets needs to be ignored by the closing administrator. Cullen328 (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When an experienced editor looks at the references in the current version of this article, most look pretty weak, and then you think, "Oh my gosh, this guy got coverage in the New York Times! I am a subscriber and this is the sum total of what that newspaper wrote about Ball: “Citgo’s the last thing you think of,” said Leverett Ball, 23, a radio promotions assistant who was standing with his father, the economist Laurence Ball, near the sign on a recent evening. That is a classic example of a passing mention, and is not significant coverage. Far from it. The Boston Citgo sign may be notable, but the fact that Ball said seven words about it does not make Ball notable.

Cullen328 (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass WP:GNG. The only source that really offers what might be considered SIGCOV is from Brewster Academy, and it is basically a puff piece because the subject attended that school, so it can't be considered independent of the subject. And obviously, YouTube and IMDb can't be used as sources for a BLP. The Yahoo Finance article is churnalism and a press release from GlobeNewswire, which can't be used to establish notability, and really shouldn't be used in a BLP. The NYT article is only a passing mention that provides us with who his father is, and does not establish notability. And the two remaining sources aren't reliable sources and can't be used to satisfy GNG. As an experienced editor, I made this determination by not just looking at the references, but by actually conducting a thorough examination of the sources. I also looked for sources through The Wikipedia Library and found no sources to establish notability, so the obvious outcome here is delete. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked Newspapers.com and Google, nothing came up other then a few passing mentions. Dr vulpes (Talk) 20:32, 28 August 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 [4]. 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]

List of Will & Grace characters

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

List of non-notable characters that is already covered at the main article for Will & Grace. There is a reckless amount of unsourced material and nothing to justify its own article. Even the main character articles like Will Truman or Grace Adler have severe problems with sourcing but we have to start somewhere. Jontesta (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No BEFORE articulated. Complaint suggests most (all?) problems are solvable by editing/trimming, and has an obvious merge target. Jumping to AfD is unwarranted. And, since the topic of "Characters of X" is "X", notability for a list of characters article isn't even in question. Jclemens (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of the points you've raised, but I'd contest that last point. Notability isn't inherited. Just because Will & Grace is notable doesn't mean a list article about the characters appearing in the show should be kept on the same principle. But, as I said, I agree with the majority of your points. I don't have a strong opinion on this yet. An AfD may not be the optimal venue for a merge discussion, but it gets the job done, and I suspect any trimming is going to be more of a hatchet job. DonIago (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Inherited" isn't a sensible way to articulate the relationship between X and Characters of X. "Characters of" X is an element or subset of X. The notability of my left hand is not inherited from me like the notability of my son might be; one is a subset, one is an offspring. Jclemens (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable WP:SIZESPLIT from the main article – details about recurring characters are generally good as encyclopedic content, though I agree that the current list is too long (removing the list of one-time guest stars would probably be a good place to start trimming) and should have better sources (in general, character lists across Wikipedia tend to be poorly sourced, but that's distinct from encyclopedic relevance). RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:SIZESPLIT. "List of characters" pages for notable TV shows are very common on Wikipedia. I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument against deletion, but sometimes, well, other stuff does actually exist: in other words, it's common practice, like a "List of episodes" page or a "List of awards and honors" page, when the parent page is too long to support it. Toughpigs (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - albeit somewhat on the fence. I think given the program's historical importance in terms of queer representation on American television, which was naturally expressed through its choice of characters and sometimes casting, Will & Grace has as much right (maybe more) to have a list of characters than many other shows which also do; as the above user says, it is basically common practice. Additionally a list like this is not appropriate for the main article, so if it is deemed that there are enough recurring characters to warrant this treatment, a separate list makes sense. There are perhaps concerns about how much of the existing content can be sourced anywhere other than just by citing the episodes in which events happen, in my opinion. However recommendations for starting improvements would be: a) removing most (all?) one-time-only characters, since if those have any notability it will go on the "list of episodes" or individual episode pages; b) providing number of episodes next to each listed character, which helps readers understand relative importance of a character to the program; c) sorting them by season appearance or some kind so that the page serves as a useful encyclopedic reference to the television series rather than to the world of the series, which is the fan's prerogative; and d) perhaps porting over the more complex table of supporting characters from the main article - it serves little purpose there. The Cardigan Kid (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments above and per WP:SIZESPLIT. Will and Grace was/is very popular and had 11 seasons with a lot of guest stars and this cannot all fit in the same page. I have looked online and have seen many sources showing SIGCOV of the characters and show and this is before evening looking through archive and newspapers. I agree that the current page needs work but it is very possible to improve by sourcing the cast and adding real world information and reception to improve the page. I would begin improving it now but my time is currently limited as I am in the middle of exams; however, I have added some (not all) sources that can be used for improvement on the talk page.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I share DaniloDaysOfOurLives’s sentiment. This was a popular, longstanding, and groundbreaking prime time television series on a major network, when that mattered. Sources can be found easily, especially about the guest stars who played themselves (or semi fictional avatars), like Cher and Elton John. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup, per The Cardigan Kid. Editors saying that size splits trump notability need to review WP:AVOIDSPLIT. But this was a notable series with sufficient coverage for its ensemble cast. I might agree with cleaning up the one-time minor appearances, but that can be done through editing, not AFD. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chacha Zindabad

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

Simply fails WP:NFILM, no evidence of notability, no critical reception whatsoever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Done BEFORE, but found zero sources that can make the subject notable; fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. GrabUp - Talk 14:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Redirect; it will be okay to do. GrabUp - Talk 04:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Saran, S., Alvi, Ten Years with Guru Dutt: Abrar Alvi's Journey (Penguin, 2008) has a paragraph about the film. Notable cast, director and music director. Anyway a redirect to the director is totally warranted, so very opposed to this being deleted. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC) (Given the improvements made to the article, and as I explain below, I must clarify: I am not in favour of a Redirect either and think a plain Keep is the fairest outcome for this type of films, even if the current coverage and state of the page are still very much improvable. The film appears clearly notable in my opinion).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Kishore_Kumar_filmography#1946_to_1960. 3 sources on the page. Source 1 only says when the movie was scheduled to be released. Source 2 has nothing on the film. Source 3 has a very brief passing mention about film and not enough to pass notability. Page fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. RangersRus (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - One source is not enough to keep, but given it is verifiable, a redirect target is appropriate.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I hope the redirect target were referring to here is the one RangerRus proposed which seems to be a reasonable ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article now has way more sources than other film articles from 1959. Most of the film's songs were hits and have relevance till now, which can be seen by a WP:BEFORE search or from the sources I added in the Music section. I believe we have two full-length reviews in major publications, which I have added to the reception section. FWIW, the film and its songs are mentioned in the biographies of Kishore Kumar, Madan Mohan, Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After reviewing new changes and sources, I still believe that page fails WP:NFILM. Some sources are unreliable and the others have a very very brief passing mention and some almost look like just entries. Source 1 only says when the movie was scheduled to be released. Source 2 is Google book by unreliable self publication (Hay House) and have very brief passing mention. Source 3 is biography on Kishore Kumar and has passing mention. Source 4 is on biography of Om Prakash and has passing mention. Source 5 (Cinemaazi) is biography on Anoop Kumar Ganguly and is unreliable source where disclaimer clearly mentions that it does not warranty on accuracy and completeness. Source 6 (Bangalore Mirror) is interview with singer Lata Mangeshkar and has passing mention. Source 7 (Seniors Today) is about Lata Mangeshkar and has passing mention and is also unreliable as the site provides senior citizens with health information, practical strategies to improve their physical, mental and emotional well-being. Source 8 (scroll.in) is about Asha Bhonsle and has passing mention. Source 9 (Tribune) is about Kishore Kumar and has passing mention. Source 10 (Gaana.com) has list of songs to listen from the film. Source 11 (Google book) published by unreliable self publishing company, Notion Press, has passing mention. Source 12 (allmusic.com) is list of songs just like source 10 to listen to. Source 13 is Google snippet and impossible to verify the complete page that shows just passing mention. Source 14 is also Google snippet by FilmiIndia who self published using own FilmiIndia Publication company and regardless of self publication, verification of entire page is impossible. Source 15 (Google book) has very brief passing mention. There is not a single full fledged source with indepth coverage on the film. RangersRus (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that assessment was correct (I don't think that what you call passing mentions are all passing mentions, for example), the film would still meet WP:NFILM's inclusionary criteria#2 "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." being a big success (among other things) in the career of (various) (very) notable persons, don't you think? I don't think it is fair to delete or even redirect, to be completely honest, a page with that many mentions (with some including short but significant critical appraisal) in various sources, some being more reliable and/or significant than other, true. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NFILM#2 may apply but that criteria is prefaced with "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist" - This does not mean it is automatically notable. It still needs the significant coverage. I would be willing to change my !vote to Keep should someone supply a list of those sources. I currently don't find any. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are reviews such as Film India which although in snippet view is titled as a film review which suggests significant coverage, together with a number of mentions for this 1959 pre-internet film which really needs to be researched offline, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:25, 28 August 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 writeup 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]

Junoon (2008 TV series)

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Article has zero source. M S Hassan 🤓☝🏻 10:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Imagine_TV#Reality/non-scripted_programming: or to Annu Kapoor -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:14, 22 August 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]

Balitang Kris

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

None of the sources even mention this show, but as it has already been draftified for that reason and some people object to redraftification, AfD it is. Completely non-notable very short-lived TV show. Fram (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Fram (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Balitang K, from which this was apparently a short-lived spinoff. In a search for secondary coverage in RS, all I could find was Kris takes over 'Balitang K' slot (routine coverage in a RS) and this passing mention in a source operated by GMA, so the source is reliable but not independent. Wikishovel (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kris Aquino -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Balitang K and not to Kris Aquino. HueMan1 (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the "Balitang K" article per Wikishovel. -Ian Lopez @ 11:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Balitang K as it is a spinoff, as noted by and based on the sources found by Wikishovel. Prof.PMarini (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its predecessor Balitang K. Fails WP:NTV alone unlike Balitang K. SBKSPP (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programs broadcast by Imagine TV#Comedy series. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jasuben Jayantilaal Joshi Ki Joint Family

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Article only contains one ref. M S Hassan 🤓☝🏻 12:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Imagine_TV#Comedy_series. 1 source on the page that is unreliable. Missing significant coverage on the series and not much can be found in search engine on reliable secondary independent sources. RangersRus (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Imagine_TV#Comedy_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:11, 22 August 2024 (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.

Elvish Yadav

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability issue. Winning one show and couple of music videos are not enough. Xegma(talk) 05:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Television, Internet, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the 50 ish refs do make the subject pass WP:NBASIC, could you specify the guideline that you are using to determine if they are notable or not? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability for WP:GNG is determined by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and that is already demonstrated by the references in the article including many newspaper articles, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, almost half of the refs are about Bigg Boss OTT. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 18:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly appears to be the subject of much third-party coverage from reviewing the sources. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of doctors working in the British media

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

While there are, of course, doctors who work in British media, I wasn't able to find reliable sources that discuss this as a group. toweli (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, News media, Radio, Television, Health and fitness, and Lists. toweli (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category-ify if that's an option. I BOLDly created Category:Medical doctors in British media. I'm not too keen on Ernest Hart (medical journalist), someone who died in 1898, being listed as 'working' in the present tense. Is it considered 'involved' or anti-consensus for me to add all of the listed to the category I just created? Svampesky (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support conversion to category; better in general and will be much less susceptible to the article being abandoned. Nate • (chatter) 16:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't believe it's possible to close an AFD with a "categorify" closure. That's an editing chore and a closer can't enforce that and is not obligated to handle that themself. At best, a more suitable closure would be "Keep" and then one of the participants here can take on that task. Any takers? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that I'm not sure a category with this scope would get past a debate at WP:CFD but that's an issue to face after this discussion closes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Svampesky created Category:Medical doctors in British media and added articles to it a week ago. toweli (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Armanon Ka Balidaan-Aarakshan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. M S Hassan (talk | contributions) 10:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:39, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources on the page indicate some notability; as does coverage like https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/ls-polls-done-these-tv-shows-promise-to-provide-more-political-drama/city-of-dreams/slideshow/69443975.cms; the fiction and the controversy surrounding it are also covered (not a trivial mention) in A Cruel Theatre of Self-Immolations: Contemporary Suicide Protests by Fire and Their Resonances in Culture (a 2020 book). Anyway a redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Imagine_TV#Drama_series is totally warranted; so very opposed to deletion of this. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Imagine_TV#Drama_series. 2 sources on the page with one a deadlink and the other "on news on asking the makers to adhere to programme and advertising codes while showing scenes of violence." There is no significant coverage and notability here. RangersRus (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the dead link is accessible in its archived version on the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources given by Mushy - the 2020 book shows in depth SIGCOV.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are not lacking and the article can be expanded. The reason the show is subject to scholarly review is due to the generally unexplored aspect of affirmative action in India in popular media, all the more reason to retain and expand it. Gotitbro (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign Robot Wars robots

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

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholly unsourced and not a defining characteristic and oddly titled, as if those 'dirty foreigner robots' should be separated from those 'fine British robotfolk'. Nate • (chatter) 22:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe selective merge with List of Robot Wars robots in the sense of mentioning the foreign "nationality" of a robot in the respective series' list. It may be WP:INTERESTING, but definitively not enough for a stand-alone list. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on selective merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge useful content with List of Robot Wars robots Ben Azura (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayeye Penhan

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

Fails WP:NFILM in short. No critical reception whatsoever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Entertainment, and Iran. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is about an Iranian film that was recorded in Iran according to the sources available in the article. If the article is lacking in content, it is likely that the user who created it did not have sufficient information and was unable to provide further edits. As you may have noticed, a 'stub' template has been added at the end of the article, indicating that editors are encouraged to help expand the article by adding more information. According to this procedure, the article needs more time to be completed. However, you have placed a deletion template on this article, which goes against the rules of English Wikipedia." 5.233.174.226 (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have no decent sourcing to start with, adding a stub template doesn't really help. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No mentions in RS other than what's given; not seeing notability for this short film. I don't find any sourcing either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A statement is made that is not logical. You say there are no sources, so what are the sources listed in the references section for? This has been officially announced as a certain type of film and has been screened as a cinematic movie in Iran and registered on IMDb. You shouldn't compare this article, which pertains to Iran, with an article related to the United States, because it was created by an editor who has limited knowledge about Iranian cinema, and this will be corrected over time with the help of other editors. Unfortunately, you made a hasty decision to delete this article, which is not logical and violates Wikipedia's rules. This article is still new and was created just a month ago, and a stub template has been added to allow editors to contribute, with credible sources also cited. 5.233.174.226 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article, with its completed information, should remain on English Wikipedia and not be deleted, so that it can be improved and matured by editors.

Thank you. 5.233.230.102 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to know that a topic is notable enough to merit an article first, instead of creating an article and waiting to see if editors find enough sources. However, the other option is always to set up a draft, which can be improved and moved back into the main article space once it's ready. hinnk (talk) 07:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to stay: This article is about an Iranian film and is still in the early stages. It should be allowed to be edited. If the article has any issues, please help by editing and improving it rather than deleting the article altogether. With suggested edits from editors, this article can be strengthened, but deleting it would not be productive. This article should remain; otherwise, we would be violating Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you.HistoryBuff98 (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff98 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to stay: The article has been updated with new sources that establish its notability and confirm the significance of the film according to Wikipedia's guidelines. The references are now comprehensive. This article should remain on English Wikipedia so that we, the editors, can continue to expand and improve it.HistoryBuff98 (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryBuff98 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Pogo

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Sources are unreliable or do not talk about the programming as a whole. Many of the sources are primary cited to the channel itself. There is currently only eight active programs which can be merged into the main Pogo (TV channel). In fact, those programs don't even appear to be original programming so they originate with another network. As far as the argument that the list serves a purpose, there is already a category for its original programming which serves such purpose, especially since the shows listed here are mainly originating from other networks. CNMall41 (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A standard WP:SPLITLIST in the Category:Lists of television series by network. Sourcing can be improved.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list has big problem with unreliable sources and that is why I did not opt for merge either. I went through the sources that was quite a pain in itself and found the unreliability of sources one after the other including deadlinks. If some content has to be merged with Pogo_(TV_channel)#Programming then it needs to have reliable secondary independent source to show that the channel broadcasts these programmes. RangersRus (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a clean up issue in my opinion, implying some work. For example, various pages redirect to that list, some after AfD decisions (example, where yourself !voted to redirect to that list, fwiw, in June this year). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before cross check was on AFD Mighty Raju and not the list. Now that it has come to light that the list has source issue after cross checking the references through this AFD, I would not redirect any page to it. RangersRus (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Most of the sources are just Waybacks of the network's schedule which violates PRIMARY, and the network doesn't originate new content itself, just purchases programming. Nate • (chatter) 18:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the network doesn't originate new content itself, just purchases programming: no, that is not true. See my comment above and Category:Pogo_(TV_channel)_original_programming -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum

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

Fails WP:GNG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Museums and libraries, and Illinois. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – includes references and suitable information, needs to settle down rather than have instant dismissal. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NORG with no WP:SIGCOV for the museum. Each of the sources is about its founder Doug Quick, with (at most) a glancing mention of the fact that he founded this organization. The closest we get is this local radio story, but even that is mostly about Quick with just a couple WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the museum. I'd suggest a redirect to Doug Quick but that page already redirects here. If someone wants to create that page so I can change my !vote, please ping me but otherwise I'm left with "delete." Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can work on converting the Doug Quick page to his bio and make a museum section and then merge this with the new Doug Quick Page, if you think this would work. BuffaloBob (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: Your take? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Williams (actor)

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

I can't see that this has WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources or that they meet WP:NACTOR. The article itself lists roles in multiple TV series and TV movies, however I can't see reliable sourcing to support the claims. The only independent reliable source which has SIGCOV I could find in an WP:BEFORE was this. TarnishedPath^talk 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Virginia. TarnishedPath^talk 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Not enough coverage to write a verifiable article and certainly not enough to establish notability. I can't find any significant coverage. The CBC article linked is about Tim Williams (actor), not this guy. C F A 💬 02:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pick-up that the CBC article is about an entirely different person. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Tag everything that is uncited as {{citation needed}} and tag everything that is cited to IMDb as {{better citation needed}}. BD2412 T 03:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft I support moving the article to draft where it can go incubated and sources added. Tesleemah 09:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources that could be added though? This person's notability has not been established in nearly a decade. I doubt something big is going to happen in the next six months before it is deleted. C F A 💬 14:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? If there are sources they could be added now. This article was created 10:52, 24 December 2015. Draftification should generally be used for newish articles, not articles which haven't demonstrated notability after almost 9 years. TarnishedPath^talk 10:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Draftifying an article this old is pointless. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between Draftify and Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom and per WP:DRAFTNO, articles older than 90 days shouldn't be moved to draft. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 05:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRAFTNO does not say, ‘Articles older than 90 days shouldn’t be moved to draft.’ You may have been misunderstood it. It is a guideline for new page reviewers, stating, ‘Do not draftify articles older than 90 days without discussion through AfD. If there is consensus to draftify, then it will be draftified.’ GrabUp - Talk 11:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:DRAFTNO does pertain to new page reviewers, I do think the general idea that draftification should be used for newish articles holds. I don't think it's appropriate to draftify biographical articles which have failed to established the notability of their subject after almost nine years. TarnishedPath^talk 12:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just here to clarify the WP:DRAFTNO; not commenting to the AfD. GrabUp - Talk 12:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not see a compelling reason to draft. Drafting is good when an article is not quite yet ready for main, but will or could be ready soon. I do not like to draft when there is a lack of sourcing and/or meeting the relevant notability guideline. If we draft, this article is likely to either end up back in main before it's ready (and then possible end up back at AFD), or sit in draft and end up deleted in six months. The subject does not meet notability and there is no indication they can or will do so in the near future. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie Jane

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG per these sources [5][6][7][8] which give fairly significant coverage to the subject. There are also other sources available that when combined further their notability for an article. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, source 8 above is a brief album review in Billboard (fine I guess), the rest are about the season of Big Brother and mention this person in relation to the others on the show. Not exactly significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the Big Brother season? Seems to have survived long enough on the show, but I'm not sure they're notable outside of that context. Doesn't seem to meet musical notability requirements either. The Billboard review is fine, but it's used for musical notability, then we go onto the TV show sources; you have to pick one sort of notability, you can't stack them. Being almost notable as a DJ and almost notable as a TV personality don't add up to an article here. I'm not fussed if this gets !deleted either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully we'll see more participation. Also, to the nominator, in the future, please provide a more comprehensive deletion rationale that demonstrates BEFORE has been done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conestoga College Digital TV

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

Google News searching “Conestoga College Digital TV” yields no result. No independent significant coverage. Northern Moonlight 13:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Same editor submitted Draft:Conestoga College digital television but was declined for WP:NORG; they then created this article in main namespace the same day. Northern Moonlight 13:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northern Moonlight 13:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Education, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Conestoga College: I draftified this as the CCDTV social profiles do not help with wp:NORG. Doesn’t seem there is other material. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 20 August 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) 16:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Conestoga College: should be fine, it's not yet notable enough for a stand-alone article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cue TV

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

Appears to fail general notability requirements. I also can't find any media sources. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southern_Institute_of_Technology#Campuses: (othe possibler targets exist) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Run of the mill TV station. TH1980 (talk) 23:07, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Southern_Institute_of_Technology#Campuses Ben Azura (talk) 08:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Channel North Television

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

No sources. Fails WP:N. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ or redirect to List of free-to-air channels in New Zealand (though it is not mentioned there). There's this article but nothing outside of that. Fails GNG. C F A 💬 15:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: or redirect to the list in see also (as CFA suggests). Sources (one mentioned by CFA): https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-tv-station-channel-north-revived/Y5COCFVXAAK7HQJEB25CVY5X3A/#google_vignette ; https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/51604/regional-tv-channel-'facing-certain-death' for example -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a bit more digging and found some more coverage ([9][10][11][12][13]), so I'd support a keep. C F A 💬 21:24, 21 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!} 05:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buang Ruk Kamathep

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

Unreferenced cross-wiki spam. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 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!} 06:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure what the "cross-wiki spam" claim is supposed to mean. It's a nationally televised TV series, and has the usual press coverage[14][15][16] and magazine covers[17][18], though as is often the case most information seems to be from press releases. It's 15 years old now so some sources may have gone offline. That said, The current article is such an uninformative substub that there's not much to lose if this is deleted without prejudice. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources presented by Paul 012 can be added to the page and I consider them enough to show this is notable. A redirect should be considered anyway.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Filmy

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wait, but why you actually said it passes WP:GNG earlier? And you removed the notability tags twice when I added them. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions change. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Donaldd23, Sure, I just wanted to seek some clarification. Better late than never. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources covering production, controversy and critical appraisal are in my opinion enough for this to be retained. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Momina Duraid: I’d suggest we redirect this, if not deleted, because it doesn’t meet GNG. Fwiw, it was created by LOUTSOCK (Special:Contributions/154.80.67.71) and later expanded by Nauman335, our acclaimed UPE sock master. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As per WP:Notability (television), there are sources available on Google search which can be added into the article from reliable sources, making it a notable television show.202.165.250.79 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ATA: WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not just saying. I actually google it and I found below articles other than the ones included in the article.

1, 2, 3, 4. 202.165.250.79 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the URLs are broken. Please fix them and I’ll assess them. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t access the first two URLs; the links are broken. The other two don’t meet GNG. This one is not a RS, and this one is TRIVIALMENTIONS and without a byline, so I wouldn’t consider it for GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through your talk page, and I feel you are not gonna support the logically stated "Vote in favor" cause you, yourself can Google the title of the page and then decide whether it does meet WP:GNG or not cause apparently there is coverage about the show. Anyways, "Note to the closing admin", consider the search results prior to deciding your outcome as I feel User:Saqib should, rather than putting up an article for WP:Afd, focus on improving them. Peace out ! 202.165.250.70 (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through your talk page, and I feel you are not gonna support the logically stated "Vote in favor" Sorry, I don’t quite get it. Can you explain a bit more? you, yourself can Google the title of the page and then decide whether it does meet WP:GNG or no I did a Google search and couldn’t find anything to help establish GNG. That’s why I asked you to provide coverage that you believe meets GNG. The onus is on you to provide that coverage since you voted to keep the page, not on me. I feel User:Saqib should, rather than putting up an article for WP:Afd, focus on improving them. I didn’t nominate this page for deletion. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 05:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Podcats

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and France. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ian_Parovel#Filmography: not opposed to keep (broadcast on major French networks during years, some sources but no time to improve it) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I cleaned up the page roughly. Added a source that mentions 4 awards (but I could not verify them with other sources) and good audience at the start of the series. The series was also distributed in Portugal and Poland. That could be enough but more (and better) sources would be nice.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could also be added to and redirected to List of French animated television series (I am opposed to deletion given what I mentioned above).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

Television proposed deletions