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

Ann Pennington (model)

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't pass GNG - apart from one puff article seems only to have inherited notability for marriage to Shaun Cassidy Golikom (talk) 05:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Women. Heart ^(talk) 05:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Teju Babyface

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

It appears to me that the person in question does not have enough quality secondary sources to prove notability under WP:ANYBIO. I tried to update this article as best I could. The only good source in my opinion, from IMDB, confirms his role in the movie. However, I believe it would still fall under WP:1E. Mamani1990 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Internet, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Louis

AfDs for this article:

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

This individual does not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. He has not received significant coverage in reliable sources and sources independent of the subject. Most of the references either do not mention individual, mention individual in passing only, or are links to blogs, social media posts, or subject's YouTube page. Firecat93 (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The consensus in the original AfD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ari Louis) was to delete the page. Firecat93 (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@The Blade of the Northern Lights Shouldn't this page have been deleted following the result of the first AfD? Firecat93 (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted it in 2012, so it was. This was recreated in 2014, at this point it's different enough that G4 no longer applies. If it's deleted again, some salt may be in order. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:57, 9 January 2025 (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/2025 January 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Judaism, Sports, Israel, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough references. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 21:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not salt per nom. Fails GNG due to lack of independent, significant coverage. If there is consensus to delete from this AFD, two deletions spaced out by over 12 years is not anywhere close to grounds for protection against recreation. Frank Anchor 14:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omega (Doctor Who)

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

My BEFORE yielded practically nothing for Omega. News yielded only content farm articles explaining lore, theorizing about the series, or trivial mentions of the character (The bulk of which were unreliable or belonged to WP:VALNET). Some reviews for his titular episodes were included, but do not include significant coverage that extends beyond the episode itself. Books yielded nothing barring plot summary, trivial mentions, and some brief BTS info, none of which contributes to notability. There's one brief-ish hit in "Religion in Doctor Who", but one source is nowhere near enough for notability. Scholar yielded nothing. The current article sourcing state primarily utilizes PRIMARY sources, trivial mentions, content farm content from Valnet, and one bit of dev info that doesn't contribute to notability. This subject fails WP:GNG and has no WP:SIGCOV. There's a couple different potential articles that can be used as AtDs, such as List of Doctor Who supporting characters and Time Lord, but I am admittedly unsure of which works best. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject fails WP:GNG and is deficient in WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Doctor Who characters, which is always preferable to hard deletion. Ping Jontesta. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Romanko

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable individual. Article created for PR from a disposable account. Deleted twice in ru-wiki. Кронас (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Green TV India

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

Fails WP:NCORP as there are no sources I can find that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Originally i though this was related to Green Entertainment Television but seems these are two separate entities for anyone searching name variations. CNMall41 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Junaid Memon. Not opposed to Delete. Fails to meet organization criterias to pass notability. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presentation director

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

No refs since (I think) 2009. The problem here is that I see references to people who had this role but nothing much to base a page on. I can't see how the contents of the page as it stands can be WP:V. JMWt (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to master control UK-specific title for someone who works as a master controller. Nate • (chatter) 23:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Milenka Peña

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

The journalist is not notable, with 90% of the information added lacking any sources. Cinder painter (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Bolivia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

¿Por qué diablos?

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

Article about unnotable Colombian movie without sources. I searched online for sources, but I couldn't find any. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a film, but a series. -Mushy Yank. 13:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Colombia. Shellwood (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Per the Spanish Wikipedia version, the series was nominated for awards. If not, redirect to the remake Más sabe el diablo where it is mentioned. Geschichte (talk) 07:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage about the series indicates its importance; awards mentioned on Sp WP. Unnotable, how? -Mushy Yank. 13:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added 4-5 sources to the page, FWIW, More sources exist. A Google search is not sufficient when one nominates a page for deletion. -Mushy Yank. 13:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the multiple reliable book sources added to the article since nomination as per WP:HEY, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Zone

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

Fails WP:GNG: this is a press release and other articles just briefly mention it. I think WP:TOOSOON applies. Gheus (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The network launched six years ago; was this rationale meant for another nomination? Nate • (chatter) 23:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think a proper search for sources was done. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I always check other languages' articles for additional references. See the Urdu article, which I can't read, but ironically considering the subject itself, has sources translated from the English language. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TV One Pakistan

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

Lacks direct and in-depth coverage to pass WP:ORGDEPTH. Fails WP:NORG. Gheus (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources in other languages' articles and in English online. Ping me if you find anything else. Bearian (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll

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

I found no significant coverage for this television special. Non-notable. SL93 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (strong) -- per nominator. No SIGCOV and a single source is not enough, regardless.

MWFwiki (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Morse, Steve (1998-03-31). "VH1's Top 100 Choices Don't Rock". The Boston Globe. Factiva bstngb0020010915du3v00cpl. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Picking a Top 100 in any field is hard, but it's especially hard in rock 'n' roll, which is prey to all manner of whims and prejudices. That didn't stop cable channel VH1 from trying -- and this time it didn't poll critics or fans. It polled 600 artists, who collectively chose the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, and Bob Dylan as the Top 5. Those names probably come as no surprise, but there will surely be smirks at some of the other 95 acts on the list unveiled on VH1's "100 Greatest Artists of Rock &Roll." The show premieres tonight from 10 to 11, followed by additional one-hour segments at the same hour each night through Saturday. ... As a parlor game, it's fun to discuss the results. But the list could have been better, and so could the show, which succumbs to numbing repetition and is undone by Bacon's goofy rah-rah attitude and by an insipid female voice-over. Each winner is represented by video footage you've probably seen many times before and sometimes by self-serving concert clips from the VH1 archives. These are the "100 Greatest Artists" in a narrowed universe."
2. Farber, Jim (1998-03-29). "Fab 4 Top 100 List". New York Daily News. Factiva nydn000020010918du3t006hj.
  The article notes: "Wanna start an argument? Name the 100 greatest music artists of all time in order.VH1 just dared to, basing its choices not on in-house opinions, nor on those of critics, but on the picks of current artists themselves.From Tuesday through Saturday (at 10 p.m.), the music channel will run five hour-long segments counting down the "100 Greatest Artists of Rock 'n' Roll" in groups of 20. The installments center around archival footage of the musicians and feature quotes from those they influenced. ... The results include some surprises. The top three 1) The Beatles, 2) The Rolling Stones and 3) Jimi Hendrix deserve comment only in that the third slot isn't occupied by Bob Dylan, who instead landed at No. 5. ... Even so, perhaps the most jaw-dropping choice is The Police at No. 10, above Ray Charles (No. 12), Marvin Gaye (No. 14) and Aretha Franklin (No. 21). However much juice this defunct band commands, they hardly rate Top Ten status in terms of innovation or depth."
3. Gieske, Tony (1998-03-21). "VH1 Presents the 100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 351, no. 47. pp. 20, 133. ProQuest 2393629738.
  The article notes: "Six hundred musicians from the VH1 "roll and Rollodex" voted up a list of the 100 all-time all-frantic ones, and tonight the bottom 20 are stitched into a kind of rock quilt, the first of five tumultuous sections. The list runs from bottom to top, Letterman-style. ... Fats Domino gets to do "Blueberry Hill" all the way through, with only a few adulatory interruptions, but he's one of the few who is permitted a whole number. And so it goes in this high-speed panorama. The songs, the artists and the commentary are perforce familiar if not banal, so it's all in the editing, which is fortunately first-rate in the Jet Ski style for which MTV is famous. Jet Ski or Osterizer. We're talking jarring juxtapositions like Robert Johnson and Diana Ross, Carole King and Madonna, Johnny Cash and the Ramones. In the second chunk, to be heard Wednesday, John Coltrane wins the posthumous title of honorary rocker, and Miles Davis gets in there eventually."
4. Hay, Carla (1998-03-21). "VH1 polls artists on rock's greats". Billboard. Vol. 110, no. 12. pp. 10, 110. ProQuest 227110870. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Internet Archive.
  The article notes: "Amid the seemingly endless parade of awards shows and "best of" lists, VH1 has produced a unique music survey naming "The 100 Greatest Artists Of Rock And Roll." The acts included in the survey weren't chosen by critics or VH1 staffers but by other music acts. The survey results will be revealed in a countdown that premieres March 31-April 4 on VH1, and labels and retailers are already anticipating a sales boost for some of the acts as a result. ... The majority of those named in "The 100 Greatest Artists Of Rock And Roll" are artists who made their marks well before the dawn of MTV. Although consistent favorites Elvis Presley, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, and the Rolling Stones predictably have made the top 10, the survey also yields results that may be surprising to some people. David Bowie is ranked higher than Presley, and the Police are the only post-punk/MTV-era act ranked in the top 10. In addition, some acts who don't fall neatly into the rock category are on the list, including Bob Marley, Johnny Cash, Aretha Franklin, and John Coltrane."
5. Piccoli, Sean (1998-04-03). "Business as Usual: Irrepressible Punk Rage". Sun Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "Rating the greats Off the subject of polemics _ but not too far off _ my always outrage-able Sun-Sentinel colleague, television critic Tom Jicha, spotted the music cable channel VH1 picking a fight of another sort this week: the 100 Greatest Artists of Rock 'n' Roll video-thon. VH1 says its 100 Greatest were selected through a mailing to more than 600 rock 'n' roll musicians. Not all results are surprising: The Top 10 includes the Beatles (1), Jimi Hendrix (3), Bob Dylan (5) and James Brown (6). But it gets interesting. Positing Dylan as a runner-up to Hendrix, in fact, may be the least argumentative of the rock panel's picks. ... The five-part series concludes with a pair of one-hour broadcasts, 10 tonight and Saturday, hailing the final 40 contenders through interviews, concert footage and video clips."
6. Hesse, Monica (2007-09-29). "On Cable, Shows That Count Down To the Lowest Common Denominator". The Washington Post. ProQuest 2827611958. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "A decade ago, Jeff Gaspin, VH1's new vice president of programming, suggested that the channel do a countdown show -- a Casey Kasem-y thing with musicians, not critics, picking the rankings. In 1998, VH1 premiered "100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll": a five-part series going from No. 100 Paul Simon to the list-topping Beatles, with everyone from Nirvana (No. 42) to Gladys Knight & the Pips (91) in between. So many artists. So much anticipation. So much Kevin Bacon, who hosted."
7. Ivry, Bob (1998-04-25). "Poll Takes the Pulse of Rock's Greatest Acts". The Record. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "lanagan sent ballots to hundreds of musicians, asking them to put together their entire Top 100 "greatest artists" list no more specific than that and received more than 100 back. ... Another sign that a new generation of rockers voted in the poll is the low position of the King of Rock-and-Roll Elvis could muster only a No. 8 ranking. ... Another mild surprise is the dearth of female artists in the top spots, especially in the era of Lilith Fair and boom times for women singer-songwriters like Jewel, Shawn Colvin, and Sarah McLachlan. Aretha Franklin was the top woman, at No. 21, and Joni Mitchell, another idol of all three of the aforementioned singers, was second in the women's category, at No. 32."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 100 Greatest Artists of Rock & Roll to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability has been shown. This can be considered withdrawn if MWFwiki changes their vote to keep. SL93 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn MWFwiki (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Butt-Head

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

Like Beavis, this article has no WP:SIGCOV at all per WP:BEFORE. Most of the sources talked about the film Beavis and Butt-Head, instead of the characters. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 10:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per nom. Most sources really don't separate this character from the plot, let alone from the other main character. This doesn't have distinct WP:SIGCOV for its own article. This is a WP:NOPAGE situation where the essential details can be covered at the main Beavis and Butt-Head series article. Any additional plot information can be covered at the individual works. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Shooterwalker. Series is notable but there's not really much discussing Butt-Head independently of the series, or even Beavis himself. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for the reasons I laid out at the Beavis AfD. Note that the current hatnote on this page for butthead should be transferred if the redirect is created. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to be consistent with Beavis. Neither character has WP:SIGCOV, as the nomination stated. Jontesta (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Kolesnikov

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

Fails WP:BIO. Not seeing any demonstrated notability for this person. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. Skazi (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, Television, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is essentially unsourced. Some of the unsourced content is apparently a misinformation, possibly a hoax. My very best wishes (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Take Me, I'm Yours

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

Not notable- ref 1 and is just plot/sypnosis, and ref 3 is about an actor and how is joining the show, and not about the show. And I wasn't able to find sources for notability with google. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about the current article, but please restore the redirect to Take Me I'm Yours rather than deleting. --Zundark (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Easy to find coverage just by searching in Japanese, such as [1] [2] [3] Iostn (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese article ja:私をもらって frames it a little better as originally a Korean web novel and webtoon "날 가져요", so it's worth looking around for Korean source material. Here's some coverage which is less than deep but more than trivial: Yonhap News Agency, on it being made into a Japanese TV show, [4]; Korea Herald, similar along with some other webtoons also mentioned, [5]; Chosun Ilbo, on it and other web novels and sexually suggestive content, [6]. Adumbrativus (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Japanese and Korean coverage identified above seems to show this could be considered notable enough; thanks. And as another contributor says, a redirect seems warranted, so opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 12:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Iostn‘s sources, and others readily available in Japanese. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go, Baby!

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability, even with the primary sources shown, simply listing IMDB and Disney deprives this article's notability TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the most recent IP to contest the redirect created by the last nomination at least partially pointed out, all that has changed since that nomination is that the subject is no longer included in the list of programs broadcast by Disney Jr., and hasn't been since 2022. That, to me, indicates that retaining this in any capacity is no longer warranted (unless another redirect target surfaces). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Disney, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Josh_Selig#Filmography: listed there; addresses the concern raised above. -Mushy Yank. 12:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pamilya Sagrado episodes

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

This is a contested draftification and AfC rejection. This list provides nothing that isn't already at Pamilya Sagrado. An article consisting entirely of a list of episodes is a policy violation — Wikipedia is not a catalog. I would recommend redirecting to Pamilya Sagrado. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Philippines. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pamilya Sagrado Per MOS:TVEPISODELIST, this article needs secondary sources. Since there wasn't any of those, it fails to meet WP:GNG. Agreed with the recommendation. JRGuevarra (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pamilya Sagrado per above. AstrooKai (Talk) 09:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MOS:TVSPLIT might be applicable to this Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:35, 3 January 2025 (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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derek_Brenzcewski

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Derek Brenzcewski

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

Reality TV star, one show only. Fails WP:BIO SallyRenee (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Television, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of WP:GNG besides two pieces from a local Patch newspaper. The show doesn’t even have a page here, and that too doesn’t seem notable enough. Delete. Jordano^5³ 13:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every indication I'm seeing looking up the show is that this was a self-financed pilot the subject paid Spike to air hoping that they'd make more episodes, which they didn't. There also seem to be search results suggesting he was doing this all while working in a local school district and corresponded with the producers through his school account, but just looking at the show and subject, there's nothing here outside a vanity project somehow getting time on a major cable network for its failed pilot. Nate • (chatter) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only thing I find online about this person are Facebook and similar websites. He allegedly is a serial entrepreneur. Bearian (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added two sources from Patch and one from Shaw Local, but I'm not sure if they will be helpful. Aona1212 (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2025 (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.

Lionel Luthor

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

I know this article is GA, but everything are cited as primary sources. Did WP:BEFORE, but found zero WP:SIGCOV. A source for ex like this [7] isn't. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Man from Krypton, p. 85, has a relevant though brief characterization of Lionel Luthor, and likewise with The Smallville Chronicles. "Enter the Aleph: Superhero Worlds and Hypertime Realities" interestingly has a comparison to Samson of all people. Most importantly, does anyone have access to "The Role of Parents in the Processing of Adolescent Trauma in Smallville"? That sounds pretty promising. Daranios (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, here. This paper does have a lot of plot summary on Lionel Luthor, but also evaluation of his role, although mostly in relation to Lex Luthor (Smallville). Daranios (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Lex Luthor (Smallville) or/and List of Smallville characters#Lionel Luthor. While the great majority of material here is referenced to primary sources, it is not everything. There's IGN, DVD Verdict (where I don't know if it's reliable) and the Saturn Award. More importantly, the secondary sources listed above (result of a non-exhaustive WP:BEFORE search) together can provide enough commentary to fullfill WP:WHYN and WP:NOTPLOT. Much of the commentary is related to the relationship with Lex Luthor, so I have no objection against a merge. Daranios (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lex Luthor (Smallville) or/and List of Smallville characters#Lionel Luthor. I would default to the list, with any additional detail covered at Lex Luthor. I agree that most of the coverage is in relation to Lex Luthor. There isn't enough WP:SIGCOV for a meaningful article but there is still something to WP:PRESERVE. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge the Smallville information to List of Smallville characters#Lionel Luthor and the comics version to List of DC Comics characters: L in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I trust Daranios judgement here. But take away the GA status: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lionel Luthor/1. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wordhunt

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I wrote on the talk page while you were writing this, there is a lot of coverage of the Wordhunt to be found in Proquest. I added several reliable sources (Guardian, Scotsman, Chronicle of Higher Education), and the Boston Globe was already cited in the article, but there are also articles in Proquest in The Times (several), The Observer, Belfast Telegraph, Derby Evening Telegraph, Daily Post and even The Hindustan Times and Pittsburgh Post - Gazette. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Television, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the reason is solely "not notable" then I have to disagree. There's definitely some room for improvement on the article, but if there's enough sources about it, I see no reason to not keep it. It seems like WP:DANNO is happening here, I'd rather be convinced this isn't notable instead of just being told it isn't. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 21:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Selective) Merge with Balderdash and Piffle. We've definitely got some good coverage of this, but given that the two topics are so closely intertwined, I don't see why they need separate articles. The article as-is could use some trimming...we don't need the whole list of words for sure, but both can certainly fit comfortably together. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting given the argument to Merge. I'll just say that this is a very poor deletion rationale which isn't an argument at all or and doesn't demonstrate that a BEFORE has been done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vallabhaneni Maheedhar

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

A WP:BEFORE search yields results from databases, LinkedIn, Facebook, Amazon, and other unreliable sources. The subject fails to meet under WP:NACTOR and WP:FILMMAKER. Also, there is no indication of meeting WP:SIGCOV. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 9 January 2025 (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 Cindy Beale. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who Attacked Cindy?

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article consists almost entirely of an incredibly lengthy plot summary and contains original research. It is also very off-topic throughout, given how unfocused several headings are (The "Storyline creation and development" section contains almost no information about such, instead focusing on unnecessary announcements and events preceding it, and the "Reception" section shows few reactions to the storyline as a whole, with ref 13 particularly being about a different topic entirely). FishLoveHam (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To emphasise how the sources are insufficient given the topic:

[1] Not related to the storyline itself, just background surrounding the central character.
[2] Just backing up that she was key in that story, again, unrelated to the article's subject. Additionally, the claim that the character was made central to storylines is technically original research.
[3]-[6] see [2], an overview of the central character's storylines is not needed, and it almost seems as if it was only included to pad out the article.
[7] Correct, but not relevant.
[8] "Producers decided to incorporate Cindy into the show's 40th anniversary storyline when it became clear how pivotal the character had become" - original research.
[9] see [2]
[10]-[12] Okay reception, but all can be found in the Episode 7037/7038 article.
[13] Misleading, as the statement is correct, but the article is not about the storyline as it was published before the initial attack was aired.

FishLoveHam (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several amendments to the article; as a result, the references in your piece will of course no longer be relevant to the article in its current form. Regardless, I have clarified and defended them in this response, whilst also illustrating the amendments I have made.

[1] Cindy is pivotal to the storyline; hence, some background information is helpful

[2] I accept this and have removed it from the article.

[3-6] Amended to highlight how these storylines built into "Who Attacked Cindy?"

[8] This has now been amended

[9] Amended by removing the original research

[10-12] We could expand by transferring the reception from Episode 7037/7038; reception to the Christmas Day 2009 episode is included on the Who Killed Archie? storyline.

[13] This has now been removed based on your critiques. Filer390 (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retain

Filer390 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background information can be helpful, but in this case it reads more as clutter. You're correct about Cindy being pivotal to the storyline, but the article isn't about her. While this story could have been in the pipeline during her reintroduction, George affair, etc. There isn't proof of such, so it can't be considered part of the storyline's creation/development. Also, about "Who Killed Archie?", the 2009 Christmas episode doesn't have its own article, and the "Who Killed Archie?" article doesn't solely consist of information about the episode the character is killed/attacked, like in this article. On a case-by-case basis, it isn't okay here. FishLoveHam (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think you seem to realise that not everything that happens on the show needs a Wikipedia article; "Who Killed Archie?" and "Who Killed Lucy Beale?" were HUGE, and comparatively dwarf this particular storyline in terms of scale and media coverage. Again, I'd like to reiterate that this storyline COULD become notable in the future, but the current state of this article demonstrates that it isn't. FishLoveHam (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retain or Merge with Episode 7037/7038. I agree that as it stands, the article has too much original research (and not enough citations), but those are grounds for it needing improvement, not removal. HarashoEli (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding the redirect or merge with Episode 7037/7038. This is a fandom.wiki level of detail. Kazamzam (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Standard soap plot this time of year and very much of a OR 'type what I see' recap we've long discouraged with a bizarre narrative writing style that seems inspired by true crime, not a fictional series. There are also a lack of real-world impact sources and too many BBC/Radio Times stories considered not as disqualified PR as they should be, but as serious sources when that's far from the case. Nate • (chatter) 22:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a standard soap plot as it has been promoted as part of the show's 40th anniversary storyline in sources which the article cites. Similar to how previous anniversary storylines like Who Killed Archie? and Who Killed Lucy Beale? have articles due to their significance to the show's history.

Having read more of this discussion, I now accept that the storyline section should be subject to judicious editing.

In conclusion, could you clarify whyRadio Times articles should be considered as disqualified PR? The magazine is now independent from the BBC. Filer390 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they kill somebody off every five/ten years that seems pretty standard in itself, and the RadioTimes sources (which are from the same writer) are utterly promotional to send viewers to VOD and onto a bog standard soap recap. It adds nothing to the article outside recapping the episode. Nate • (chatter) 21:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to a section within the main Cindy Beale article. I'm not sure it passes WP:GNG in it's current state, and I'm not sure how notable it is overall, especially compared to similar storylines, like Who shot J.R.? (maybe a different discussion there though). Also, I notice the nominator is creating their own draft about the same subject... - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I started a section on Cindy Beale about this whodunit. FishLoveHam (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify: Unbelievably cruel to delete someone's hard work, especially when it's been nominated by someone who creates articles for random episodes on the daily basis. This storyline will culminate at the anniversary and will no doubt gain traction when the 40th approaches. Tamzin Kuzmin (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What an odd response to an AFD... First, it isn't "unbelievably cruel" to nominate an article for deletion, especially when this happens on a daily basis and the article meets the critieria for deletion. You are seemingly assuming bad faith in this discussion, which is not the case. As for me being "someone who creates articles for random episodes on the daily basis", that is both irrelevant and blatantly false. Of the thirty-six articles I have written, three are television episodes, and only two are EastEnders episodes. And on "This storyline will culminate at the anniversary and will no doubt gain traction when the 40th approaches" You don't know that for sure, and in a way supported the argument that in its current state, this article fails WP:GNG. Even supposing you end up being correct, the 40th anniversary is over a month away, and is it really worth keeping this poor article up for that long, even with the chance that this storyline doesn't get much coverage come 40th or afterwards? I'm not opposed to this storyline receiving an article in the future, but it simply isn't notable enough as of now. FishLoveHam (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You asserted that the storyline isn’t significant at this time as we don’t know what will take place in it. However, an article on the 40th anniversary live episode currently exists, despite there being no evidence of its importance due to its plot line. Just as we can assume it will be important due to previous anniversary specials ie 25th and 30th anniversary, we can assume Who Attacked Cindy will be important due to previous whodunnits like Who Killed Archie? and Who Killed Lucy Beale? This storyline requires an article as it has been confirmed to be part of the 40th anniversary episodes, and can be added to over time. Filer390 (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said it is insignificant because there is no guarantee that sufficient sources will exist in the future, not because it might not be important to the show's story. EastEnders Live (2025 episode), Who Killed Archie?, and Who Killed Lucy Beale? are all notable on their own, and they have the sources to prove it. An article doesn't exist because you say it should, it needs to pass WP:GNG. They do, this doesn't (as of now). To reiterate, this story being part of the 40th anniversary doesn't support its keeping and it certainly does not "require" an article for that reason. An article should only be created when the topic passes the general notability guideline, which this currently does not. FishLoveHam (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would refer you to the article on Who Killed Lucy Beale? once again; it was created only a few days after the storyline began (similar to Who Attacked Cindy?), using only one source (Digital Spy) and a lot less content than this article currently possesses. initial publication of Who Killed Lucy Beale? There was also little evidence to illustrate why the storyline was notable enough to achieve an article. Filer390 (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, was there any evidence which existed at that point in time which suggested the storyline would become so crucial? The article certainly doesn't; I would say Who Attacked Cindy's article contains much more evidence of that. Evidently, Who Killed Lucy Beale? gained more sources because it was promoted as a crucial storyline to the show, just like Who Killed Archie? before it and just like Who Attacked Cindy? now- because we know that it will be part of the 40th anniversary storyline. Clearly, the storyline's notability will rise. Filer390 (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was also 2014, over ten years ago; Wikipedia's quality standards have significantly evolved since then. Just because an article was created under less stringent conditions in the past doesn't mean that the same approach should be applied still, especially if it contradicts the General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG) , which you seem to have no regard for despite its importance. I'd also like to point out that while "Who Killed Lucy Beale?" passes general notability, it isn't necessarily a model of a great article. Please realise that the decision to delete an article is not about what might happen in the future; it is what's verifiable and notable now. Your certainty around how the article subject will gain notability violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL (Sidenote: This also states "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors", which the creation and development section is). If the storyline indeed gains traction closer to the 40th anniversary, nothing prevents its article from being recreated later. FishLoveHam (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Cindy Beale. This article currently contains a lot of plot detail that needs to be cut down. Normally a storyline would begin in the relevant character article and split if it gets too long. This storyline will probably gain more notability over time and generate reception. At present this is not the case, so I feel it would be better contained in Cindy Beale's article for now.Rain the 1 09:16, 4 January 2025 (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.

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 merge‎ to Star Jalsha#Drama series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaj Aari Kaal Bhaab

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

No indication of notability per WP:NFILM. A WP:BEFORE shows unreliable sources, database, and streaming sites. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with entry of the title of the page under Star_Jalsha#Drama_series. Not opposed to Delete. Per nom. Poor to unreliable sources with no significant coverage on the series and no multiple reviews from reliable critics. RangersRus (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: In general NP:FILM is not used for series but for TV or feature films. -Mushy Yank. 12:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 12:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Star_Jalsha#Drama_series -Mushy Yank. 12:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Star_Jalsha#Drama_series, as it cannot have its own page due to poor sources. Aona1212 (talk) 02:40, 5 January 2025 (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.

Krishna McKenzie

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:NBIO from a Google search and so should be deleted or redirected to Samayal Express. Sahaib (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is a stub being expanded. Google News has credible sources. The individual's notability does not exclusively come from Samayal Express, thus should not be redirected there. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, Tamil Nadu, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I apologise for violating WP:NPPHOUR, I am new to the job and was a bit too eager to reduce the backlog. Sahaib (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Henderson

AfDs for this article:

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

Fail WP:JOURNALIST and WP:ENT. No indication of WP:GNG. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tyner Rushing

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

WP:BLP of an actress, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, notability for actors is not automatically passed just because they've had acting roles -- the test doesn't hinge on listing acting roles, it hinges on showing reliable source coverage about them and their performances to establish the significance of those roles. But this is referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability -- IMDb, a YouTube clip and a Q&A interview in which she's answering questions in the first person -- with absolutely no evidence of third-party coverage about her shown at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger notability claim than just existing and better sourcing for the significance of her career, but working actors are not automatically exempted from having to pass WP:GNG just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey thanks for bringing attention to page needing more sources. I added about 10 references - credible news coverage showing she is an actress of notability and needs a Wikipedia page. She is a lead on my favorite Apple TV television show. Slamdunkeroo (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks again for helping me make the page more credible. To sum up, I added about 10 references - credible news coverage showing she is an actress of notability and needs a Wikipedia page. She is a lead on my favorite Apple TV television show. I propose we remove Tyner Rushing from the deletion discussion list. Slamdunkeroo (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Her roles in TV shows like Stranger Things and For All Mankind suggest potential notability. Additional sourcing from reliable sources would strengthen her case. Moopaz (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She is a lead actress in the latest season of For All Mankind, a popular AppleTV+ series. I think that is definite notability. 2600:1700:352C:2C00:1CC2:E022:CCAA:5BE (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a lot of work has gone into this article, can we have a review of newly added sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my first go at the page, I listed 5 references. About 13 more have been added by myself and others since then. News articles, press interviews, Deadline and Variety casting announcements make up the majority of links. Slamdunkeroo (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JOJO (Turkish children's channel)

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

Tagged five years ago as uncited. The cites on the Turkish article are not enough to show that it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Çukurova Media Group#Defunct properties Nothing here outside of marking its existence and the usual uncited and vandal-vulnerable programming list. Nate • (chatter) 17:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Albanese

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

This person doesn't seem notable enough to me. I cannot find any news coverage about her. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish her notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moopaz (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only "vote" is from an account that was created today. I'd like to hear more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dadı

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

Tagged 6 years ago for lack of cites. As far as I can tell the cites on the Turkish article are just for stuff like what time it was on rather than whether it was a good show or successful Chidgk1 (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_foreign_adaptations_of_The_Nanny#Turkey: until better sources are added but AfD being for deletion not cleanup not opposed to Keep (notable cast, 3 seasons on major networks) -Mushy Yank. 10:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Walls

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable sportscaster. Deletion suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Spain. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Sports, and Virginia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article establishing notability about an unremarkable broadcasting career. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Web Series About a Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time

AfDs for this article:

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

Has a lot of sources but nothing particurly in depth. Most nothing beyond basic release info, plot recap and casting info fails WP:NTV Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources, including one page in Playing Fans: Negotiating Fandom and Media in the Digital Age and one paragraph in The Last Pirate's History of Doctor Who... -Mushy Yank. 09:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a 13-page paper dedicated to the series https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15405702.2013.779505; see also https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15405702.2013.779505. Please kindly consider withdrawing this nomination as your concern seems addressed. @OlifanofmrTennant. Thank you very much. -Mushy Yank. 09:22, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that the book Playing Fans reuses large portions of the paper, as confirmed by the book's acknowledgements (and a quick skimming of both sources – the paper can be viewed through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library), so they're basically a single source. And the mention in The Last Pirate's History is a brief mention in a long list, so I wouldn't call that mention significant. Other sources in the article may contribute to notability as well, but these by themselves aren't enough. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say they are. But if you want, feel free to add Broadcast in the U.S.: Foreign TV Series Brought to America, p. 232-233. And https://collider.com/community-inspector-spacetime/ And http://braindamaged.fr/20/11/2012/web-serie-zone-inspector-spacetime/ And https://geeksofdoom.com/2014/03/12/inspector-spacetimes-untitled-web-series-needs-help-make-inspector-chronicles-movie And so on. No further comments. Still inviting the nominator to withdraw. -Mushy Yank. 12:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Geeks of Doom reliable? And most of these are talking about the gag itself which is not up for deletion. The Collider source talks about it at the very end with nothing beyond "this cool thing happened and there was no season 2" Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you open the books? Read the papers? Check other existing sources? -Mushy Yank. 22:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"And most of these are talking about the gag itself which is not up for deletion."=No, most of the sources I mention talk about the web series which you took for deletion, and some are "particurly in depth." So your concern that "Most nothing beyond basic release info, plot recap and casting info fails WP:NTV" seems totally addressed (if a page can "fail" an essay, btw). https://www.vulture.com/2012/09/not-inspector-spacetime.html (limited) https://comicbook.com/comicbook/news/communitys-inspector-spacetime-launches-his-own-untitled-webseries/ (for the history of the production) and so on. https://filmschoolrejects.com/the-inspector-chronicles-is-the-doctor-who-spoof-movie-sorta-spun-off-from-community-e844667fd8e7/ It meets the general requirements for notability even if it's only with the dedicated article and 2 of the books. Feel free to add the sources you like best to the page. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 22:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erratum: in my first reply to myself I linked twice the same paper; the second paper I intended to link was: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444814558907 -Mushy Yank. 12:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(noting for anyone who can't view the article through TWL) This is another article by the same author, Paul Booth. Per WP:GNG, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. It's also a pretty brief mention, with only one paragraph about it in a much larger paper about a broader topic. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 23:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear more opinions from editors well-versed in this field.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this discussion again before considering a No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo

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

This page was BLARed in October 2023, and now a duplicate article was created at Draft:Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo (Tv Show), which I moved to draft because of the duplication. Both pages should be merged if kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NTVNATL and merge as proposed by the nom. Deriannt (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Ayer's unrealized projects

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

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik: at Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". I no longer see these pages being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why proceed with a single AFD case now, as opposed to having an RFC to determine if such articles are appropriate, and with what criteria? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the dialogue with Zander on Guadagnino's, it's become clear these pages are purely just seen as trivia. Some very few unrealized projects are indeed are of interest, but when looking at the page, and it's largely "X announced plans to make X, but never did", it just doesn't scream as being a vital article to have. Terry Zwigoff's unrealized projects is particularly exemplary of this. Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Perfectly standard. Sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A page having sources doesn’t make the topic of value. It’s a list of films that never happened, or didn’t happen with the person, which makes their involvement with it both not that important to the person, or the project. Why does a list of that need to be on Wikipedia as its own page? Where does this end then? Does this open the door towards “Tom Cruise’s untaken roles”? Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What opens the door towards "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" is reliable outlets taking "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" up as an in-depth subject. I.e. sources, and sources only - but the sources have to handle the untaken roles as an entity. Standalone articles about individual scrapped projects can't be synthesized to a Wikipedia article per WP:SYNTH. An article about a director's turned-down or walked-over direction opportunities survived AFD not too long ago. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in my opinion it probably shouldn’t have. Clearly, what constitutes “unrealized” currently is too broad and thus it has entitled editors to include all these different projects that really don’t fall under “unrealized”. A lot of these articles have sections where it’s just like a sentence or two, and it’s about the director being “offered”, or being “considered” to direct something they never did. Or projects that were announced once and never discussed at all again, or even projects they’re verifiably still attached to and working on. That to me just makes these lists become flashy tidbit factoids that if the project was actually seen through with someone else it can just easily be noted in the film’s article, or the directors article. A whole article dedicated to mostly unproduced films with no notable production history is superfluous. Rusted AutoParts 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic fightpicking.
"In my opinion"... Wikipedia is not about opinions, son. Quit while you're ahead, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. "Power trip", good description to whomever said it. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to David Ayer – it makes more sense to discuss these projects in the context of his larger career (or to omit certain projects if their coverage is too trivial, but that can happen after a merge). Regardless of notability, at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic (WP:PAGEDECIDE). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Few editors are willing to take responsibility of it. No issue in keeping the article for some more time unless there are no significant improvements. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that "Perfectly standard" or "No issue in keeping the article" are not guideline-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not (although common sense should incite us to believe that a perfectly standard page is very likely an acceptable page as standalone list/article.) But SPLITLIST is a guideline, and a solid reason for keeping list-formatted pages. -Mushy Yank. 13:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

merge back to David Ayer and maybe thin this out. Right now this comes across as the films he didn't make are the most important part of his work. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is no reason for this to be a standalone page. Relevant content? Could be, but would make more sense for an "Unrealized projects" section on the David Ayer page. OhNoKaren (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is no reason for this to be a standalone page. Relevant content? Could be, but would make more sense for an "Unrealized projects" section on the David Ayer page. OhNoKaren (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mwijaku

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

After observing the article being too promotional (still is), I moved the it back to draft space hoping for improvement that would follow a regular review at AFC but the original editor moved it back direct to the mainspace also nowhere in the references show subject's (important claims) like date of birth or number of children they have, where did the editor get them? That's WP: PROMOTIONAL, WP:COIEDIT and tries to use wikipedia as WP:SOAPBOX.

No any notable work listed show subject's importance, just a bunch of gossip blogs. Just a reminder, Wikipedia isn't a gossip blog/newspaper WP:NOTGOSSIP.

Refs: Only The Citizen is a reliable source, the rest are blogs that cannot be trusted on WP:BLP. ANU^writes 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, Television, Internet, and Tanzania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. --John B123 (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor of this article, I have made improvements by adding additional information from sources that I believe are credible. Please review it to see if it is satisfactory and help me by correcting any mistakes. 3L3V8D (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there is an unbolded Keep here, I don't think that a Soft Deletion is an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

Television proposed deletions

News Channel 3 Knowledge Bowl (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)
Trick mode (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)
Hessische Geschichten (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)
Relatively Speaking (game show) (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)
Real Magic TV (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)
Born Lucky (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)