Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:50, 23 May 2024

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:SK #1 no valid rationale and other recent noms. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Life Crustacean

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

too many problems Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ryan barnes 1963 (talk) 01:50, 23 May 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.

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 Weigel Broadcasting#Television stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WZDS-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weigel Broadcasting#Television stations: a newer (2010s/2020s-started) LPTV carrying only national services is highly unlikely to attain the requisite significant coverage, so this redirect as an alternative to deletion is the best we can do. (Note that had Weigel not bought this station, it would have been an equally non-notable DTV America/HC2/Innovate station…) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree BMarGlines (talk) 12:27, 25 May 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.

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!} 23:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take My Muffin

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

Lack of notability. Search throws up nothing obvious; cites are less than convincing. TheLongTone (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing I find is strictly to crypto or animation blog sites, none of which are useful for notability. What's also used in the article is not in RS either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Cryptocurrency. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The articles on AnimationMagazine and CoinIdol seem significant. The claim that it was the 1st series created with the support of a cryptocurrency community is backed for ex by. https://medium.com/@kat123/what-is-take-my-muffin-c734f48266c6 and https://medium.com/@chinedukalu66/take-my-muffin-a-blockchain-based-nft-animation-project-with-the-potential-to-revolutionize-the-e73b125a8484 ; also see https://www.awn.com/news/new-episode-take-my-muffin-hits-youtube, https://thevrsoldier.com/bluelight-aims-to-gamify-the-take-my-muffin-animation-series-betting-on-the-strong-degames-trend/ and the claim itself might add some kind of notability to the production. A redirect to the only creator who has a page, if really that is considered insufficient, maybe? (I think it meets GNG, though) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Medium is not a reliable source and the VR soldier is a press release. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, which leaves us with Animation Film Magazine and some sources on the page, and a claim at notability backed by some sources. Also a redirect to Pavel_Muntyan#Filmography should be considered, so that I take advantage of this comment to indicate I am opposed to deletion.:D -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Traumnovelle (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - plain lack of WP:SIGCOV. One good source makes this WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 14:31, 4 June 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.

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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KBGU-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Missouri. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: This station has a longer history than many other DTV America/HC2/Innovate stations, but most of that was as a non-notable TBN repeater — and of course, everything after that era is the usual all-national-services with no local content or significant coverage. Another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination from 2023 (which is why a subsequent PROD was declined, leading to this nomination). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:22, 22 May 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.

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 The Sarah Jane Adventures. While arguments for deletion are weak, the rough consensus is that the content is better suited for the target article than for a standalone page. Owen× ☎ 16:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Sarah Jane Adventures minor characters

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Adding together many non-notable topics still gives you a non-notable topic. Some character articles like Sarah Jane Smith are notable but does not support having a list about every character in the series, which do not have significant coverage as required by WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 03:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep character lists' topic is the fictional element (The Sarah Jane Adventures), and are roundly considered to meet CSC #2. That is, no policy-based reason for deletion has been articulated. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^{[by whom?]} 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impossible Worlds, Impossible Things: Cultural Perspectives on Doctor Who, Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures has commentary on the characters in the series, starting from Sarah Jane, but also about the other characters as a group. Daranios (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. The problem here is less notability, but more size. The list can likely have the bulk of its content merged into the cast list already in the article given the bulk of characters here are at least decently recurring. This feels like it was dropped partway through, since the only characters beyond the significant recurring characters are minor characters from the first episode exclusively. If this does survive, it needs a major TNT/overhaul, but personally I don't see a reason for this to exist just based off of size reasons. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possibly rename, or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures. I am not convinced the split into cast and minor characters is beneficial. So I could imagine keeping and renaming this into List of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters, and include brief descriptions and links to the cast characters, most of whom have their own articles. Seems helpful to me for navigation. With regard to notability, as mentioned above, I question if it makes any sense to try to divorce conventional fiction works from the characters. What would they be without the characters? Of course there still needs to be enough material in secondary sources to write anything. Still, if one wanted to ask for secondary sources specifically discussing the characters of The Sarah Jane Adventures, Dancing with the Doctor discusses them at various places, as does the book mentioned above and others. So even if one wanted to ask for notability of characters as opposed to the series as such, that would still be fullfilled. All that said, I don't have an overview how much the secondary sources in total have to say on characters other than the main cast (and how incomplete the current list is with regards to what Pokelego999 mentioned), so I cannot say if a stand-alone article or a merge would be best in the long run, based on WP:PAGEDECIDE rather than notability. Daranios (talk) 10:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to The Sarah Jane Adventures per WP:ATD. I only find WP:SIGCOV for characters who already have articles. The minor characters don't have much coverage, but are summed up nicely at the main article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Merge? No support so far for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If asked to decide I would prefer keeping to merging. Hopefully there will be more input. Daranios (talk) 10:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Best belong to Fandom, don't anybody think? (Nothing wrong with it though, I frequent visit that site) Serves to nobody but to the most ardent fans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHOCARES is not a valid argument. (and there is an awful lot wrong with fandom) --TheImaCow (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheImaCow: Fixed unclosed small HTML tag that caused display problems on pages transcluding this AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to point out that a list of this is useful for Fandom. Still, whats makes a list of minor characters worthy of a standalone list when most lists of characters are about characters with significant roles, hence my point. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the WP:Common selection criteria for lists is that all the listed items are non-notable. See, e.g., List of minor characters in the Alice series. Other lists, such as List of generation I Pokémon, mix notable and non-notable characters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reiterate my stance that this should be kept as the best place to cover characters that are individually non-notable. I have seen no compelling reason why this list of elements of an undisputedly notable show should be redirected or deleted. No objection to combining with other character articles (or abstracting from them) to form a more traditional List of The Sarah Jane Adventures characters per WP:SS. Jclemens (talk) 01:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect No indication that people have discussed the characters of this show as a group, and we should not have a list of specifically minor characters for any show. Just because we can have a character list does not mean we should. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:05, 12 June 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.

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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)‎[reply]

Neil Fitzwiliam

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

No significant coverage and not enough major roles. SL93 (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Television, and England. SL93 (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article that doesnt meet WP:NACTOR. No major roles too and unverified sources. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend keeping. Career cut short but a fine actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:8600:e920:494d:5551:3317:934a (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wikipedia is not a database for actors. All the content should go to https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0280666/. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 18 June 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.

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. Star Mississippi 01:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Entertainment

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

Subject is a recently-launched Pakistani TV channel which seems to have evolved from a YouTube channel some time in 2023. The article has very little content other than a list of the channel's shows, many of which are former articles deleted for lack of notability, and/or for being repeatedly recreated under different titles by socks of Nauman335, a committed sockpuppeteer or possibly a network of related individuals who give the impression they are being paid to promote the channel. They have formed a sort of walled garden with circular notability: the channel is notable because of its roster of notable shows, but the shows are notable because they're on the notable network. In reality, the sourcing is extremely weak: routine coverage, obvious press releases, and/or passing mentions in articles about the shows or about Pakistani television in general. I did not find any better sources in a brief Google search, just more of the same press releases and passing mentions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been on a bit of a deletion spree with articles about TV shows from this channel, so normally I'd support this deletion nomination. But I think it would be unfair to this encyclopedia, and not just the channel, to not have an article about a channel that's part of the military's ISPR. ~~This channel might actually meet the basic GNG.~~ —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know what ISPR was (it's the Inter-Services Public Relations, the media wing of the Pakistan Armed Forces) and that's not indicated in the article. I'm not sure that lends itself to notability (per WP:NOTINHERITED) but might be a lead on better sourcing. I don't have time to check at the moment. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably something that would be useful to the article in general. The second source [1] seems to be the one decent source in the article and does mention that the channel is backed by ISPR. I think this gives a possible option to redirect the article to Inter-Services Public Relations and add a blurb paragraph that they launched Green Entertainment with the date and anything else from the lead and call it done. Ravensfire (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick web search turned up nothing really useful. The best I could find was [2], but I'm not convinced that's a reliable source. Otherwise, some social media / forum mentions and articles with a list of shows but not any in depth coverage of the channel itself. I'm leaning to Merge to ISPR at this point. Ravensfire (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That does seem like a workable approach. We don't have the sourcing for a separate article, but what info we do have could be merged to the ISPR article. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm looking at the sources for something that focus on the company Green Entertainment and has in-depth coverage of the company, and it's just not there in the article. The SomethingHaute article is quite probably churnalism from a press-release and even then doesn't have actual in-depth coverage of Green Entertainment. WP:BROADCAST is the notability essay that best fits here and highlights the need for sources for the company itself. I think it is likely this should be notable, but we need the sources that actually backs up that it is notable. Unsurprisingly, there's a lot of interest from the Nauman335 sockfarm in this article, but it's mainly about the shows, not the channel. As an alternative to deletion, I would be okay with moving to Draft but move protecting it to force an AFC review (and semi-protecting at least the main article space name). Ravensfire (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Ravensfire, But, just because we're unable to keep an eye on this page doesn't automatically mean we should trash it. I don't really spot any blatant PROMO happening in the article itself. The real issue seems to be with articles on TV shows, not so much with this one about the channel itself. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Show the sources that support WP:GNG or WP:NCORP for the channel itself. That is 100% what's needed for an article to stay on Wikipedia. Are there reliable sources that support this being a notable subject? They aren't in the article that I can see. Easy solution - find them and add them. Ravensfire (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, please do read WALLEDGARDEN. This page is exactly the issue. That aside, references do not meet ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had to take a step back to evaluate this since I have been so ingrained with sock reverts and UPE associated with this sock farm. I just assumed notability as it has numerous shows with Wikipedia pages but did not take WALLEDGARDEN into consideration. Many of the pages that were listed here are now deleted or up for deletion and searching online, the references I do find fail WP:NCORP. A lot of announcements about shows which verify they exist but verifiability is not notability. Also a ton of NEWSORGINDIA. I will place a bet now that this AfD will also be consumed with IPs, SPAs, and likely SOCKS in 3...2..1...--CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG as we have at least two in-depth references about it. First of all, this is a very important topic, as the channel is operated by the ISPR (I concur with Saqib). Initially, they launched it as an ISPR-operated channel, so Youlin etc covered as such but since then public sentiment has changed in Pakistan and it is negative against military due to their interference in politics and media. So now the military is trying to hide this relationship using different proxy companies - they don't want to fail this project. In any case, we shouldn't censor this information. To best my knowledge, Youline is a perfectly reliable quality reference and it is wrong to assume that it is generally without any consensus - if any of you have some examples of wrong reporting from them then present it on WP:RSN. Just because Wikipedia doesn't consider it as a notable topic doesn't mean Youlin is unreliable now - I'm reinstating the content removed recently. So we have one in-depth article in Youline ([3]) and second in-depth article in Independent Urdu ([4]). Please don't apply Western standards to Pakistani articles and take into consideration of local circumstances, like the control of media by ISPR in which they forbid such reporting. 195.180.32.35 (talk) 21:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 195.180.32.35, But I had an epiphany after @CNMall41, pointed out WP:WALLEDGARDEN. I guess I'll just go ahead and say DELETE this. By the way, are you the same who claimed that Bol News is reliable? And just so you know, Youline ISN'T a RS. It's just a cultural website that allows guest contributions. Plus, your coverage is essentially a guest contribution, considering the author only contributed just two stories. Therefore, it can't be used to establish WP:GNG. Calling Youline a RS seems generous, given its meager history of just 06 editorials in 12 years. While the Independent Urdu coverage serves well WP:V, but it doesn't quite meet the threshold for WP:GNG - because it primarily relies on interviews with the CEO of the Green Entertainment. See you around! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:50, 28 May 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.

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 Live & Kicking. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Farley

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable broadcaster. SL93 (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and England. SL93 (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ATD: redirect to Live & Kicking, which covers his tenure on the show as well as his personal life (more so than Katy Hill, which is another possible redirect target). Geschichte (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 3 June 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.

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 programmes broadcast by Colors TV#Drama. ✗plicit 14:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagyavidhaata

AfDs for this article:

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

I agree with the original nom: "The article doesn't cite any WP:RS and doesn't meet WP:GNG, hence should be deleted". Also, therefore, fails WP:NTV. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and Bihar. UtherSRG (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No in-depth coverage from multiple independent secondary sources found. I don’t think this article meets any criteria to be here. It fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. GrabUp - Talk 11:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Colors_TV#Drama -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an acceptable WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Page fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Poor sources with no indepth coverage. RangersRus (talk) 11:41, 28 May 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.

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 Star Premium. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Action

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

movie channel fails WP:Notability, the sources are only routine announcements with no deep or direct coverage of the company Assirian cat (talk) 07:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and United Arab Emirates. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this and Fox Action Movies to Star Premium per past consensus regarding premium multiplex channels; this article should have never been created and the FAM title moved here, and this channel isn't going to surprise you with a sudden cooking show or comedy block. Nate • (chatter) 23:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator has been blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 00:04, 29 May 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.

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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Torchwood items

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

I don't use the term CRUFT lightly, but this certainly feels like the definition of it. Nothing covers objects in Torchwood to a significant extent, and the bulk of the items covered here are minor and non-notable. I definitely feel this list should likely be deleted, or at the very least partially merged into the Doctor Who items list, though I'm not feeling confident on that list either. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 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) 17:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of meeting NLIST, and it looks like it would fit in perfectly on a Fandom wiki. Ping me if anything comes up that could change my mind. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A complete mishmash of random things related to Torchwood, ranging from things that appeared in the background of an episode, to things mentioned once or twice, to just real world things that just happened to be shown on screen. There are very clearly no sources that cover this random gathering as a group or set, meaning it fails WP:NLIST, and probably runs afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. I think even a Fandom wiki would think twice before including a page like this. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:CSC #2. The topic of this list is "Torchwood" not "Torchwood items", much like the topic of "characters of franchise" is "franchise" so the group does not have to be discussed as a set to meet NLIST, because Torchwood is already notable. No objection to renaming the article, but since we have other AfDs likely to close as merge to here (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardiff Rift) deletion is particularly problematic as it would result in the destruction of content that could be better rewritten from history to be more encyclopedic. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because Torchwood is inherently notable does not mean this list should really be existing. It's a collection of indiscriminate information about random items from the show, none of which seem to have much of an indicator that they're actually important. There's no real encyclopedic value here, as there's nothing really to be discussed. Non-notable subsets related to shows have been removed in the past for these reasons (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Doctor Who henchmen (2nd nomination) as an example from the same shared universe). As for the Cardiff Rift discussion, the Rift isn't really an item, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up in regards to that discussion, especially since the Rift isn't even mentioned in the Torchwood items article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE applies both ways; previous removals aren't normative. If there's a need to edit a list, great, do it, improve it by editing rather than deletion. The fact that this is brought up in that deletion discussion gives us a hint that 1) there is a need for an article to cover not-individually-notable aspects from Torchwood, and 2) this may be it, but at the wrong title. I'm not the person to do this, since my wife peace out'ed after Countrycide so I'm hardly informed enough about the series. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While CSC applies to lists, the list must still meet NLIST in order to be a valid standalone list, regardless of the notability of the parent topic. If this weren't the case, we'd be swarmed with a lot of useless lists like this one that don't really have any benefit to existing beyond the fact there's nothing saying they can't exist. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST and WP:IINFO, per Rorshacma. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for this as a stand-alone list. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft that fails NLIST. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 25 May 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.

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 ASTV (Thailand). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News1 (Thai TV channel)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. The sole cited source does not appear to actually mention News1 (นิวส์วัน) or its former name 11News1. Web search results for the Thai name did not turn up any usable references, although my ability to search in Thai is admittedly limited. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, and Thailand. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's weird that there is no ASTV article here, only the dab page ASTV. News1 is the latest reincarnation of that TV channel. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 04:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The station/network is notable under its previous name ASTV, the right-wing ultra-partisan channel that fuelled the 2000s' anti-Thaksin protests. See this paper for example. However, the article is an unattributed, confusing rough translation of the Thai Wikipedia article about the station's flagship channel, one out of the five channels it used to operate. There should definitely be an ASTV (Thailand) article, which should also cover its current operations as News1, but I'm not sure it'd be a good idea to convert this article for that purpose, seeing as it's barely comprehensible in its current state. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably just start a stub for that article and convert this page to a redirect. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created. Redirect to ASTV (Thailand). --Paul_012 (talk) 10:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is good at this time, thanks for putting in that work. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:46, 28 May 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.

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. ✗plicit 11:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Van Der Laag

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Badly sourced, possible sockpuppetry and/or UPE. Fails WP:BIO. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and South Africa. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found only one potentially WP:RS online, but that is not enough to establish WP:GNG. The actress is also not eligible for any of the WP:NACTOR criteria (no significant roles in notable films or significant contributions to the field). Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: at least 2 significant roles in notable productions. The page needs improvements, though. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which 2 significant roles in notable productions? Theroadislong (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isidingo/Maggie Webster; The Story of an African Farm/Tant Sannie. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:28, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to suggest that her role in Isidingo is significant, it is one of many small parts. Theroadislong (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/celeb-news/breaking-karin-van-der-laag-maggie-from-isidingo-where-is-she-now-20-september-2023/ ; https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2013-07-09-isidingo-gets-a-15-year-rewind/ ; https://www.dstv.com/kyknet/af-za/blad/desember-2017/vat-n-vet-kans-om-gewig-te-verloor/nuus ;https://www.republikein.com.na/nuus/vat-n-vet-kans-2018-09-07... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The South African article above was written by a creative content writer with a versatile writing background and is a promotional fluff piece with claims like her talent transcends borders, artistic prowess extends beyond acting and multifaceted career serves as an inspiration to aspiring artists. Creative writing indeed. The others are mentions and the ones used in the article are WP:UGC. S0091 (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC) S0091 (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@S0091 GPTZero finds that at least sections from https://www.thesouthafrican.com/lifestyle/celeb-news/breaking-karin-van-der-laag-maggie-from-isidingo-where-is-she-now-20-september-2023/ were written by AI. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent doesn't surprise me. This is the third or so article I have come across published in The South African that was promo, with the others being written by marketing/PR professionals so likely paid for. S0091 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 01:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WLNN-CD

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

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:00, 20 May 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.

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!} 22:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WTSD-CD

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

Fails WP:GNG; most sources are from the FCC. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pennsylvania. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I now have three newspaper references in there, but if there was notability, it was before the move to Philadelphia. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One could get away with sourcing primarily to FCC records in the looser inclusion standards this topic area still had in 2012 (but usually when the sourcing is that thin, it doesn't get into REFBOMB territory the way it is here), but in the Wikipedia of 2024 we require significant coverage, and evidently that appears to be in shorter supply here. Perhaps mention could be made of the W14BG "Family Vision"/WXHL-LP days in any beef-up of the article for then-co-owned WXHL-FM, but not sure how due that would be, and it might not merit retaining this article in any event. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 26 May 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.

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!} 22:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWJS-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Indiana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd have thought a local newscast would be enough to get multiple pieces of coverage. I appear to be wrong, because I only found one article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If Sammi Brie can't find sufficient significant coverage to merit retaining and beefing up this article, despite there having actually been local programming/news, it's probably safe to deem this a remnant of the looser inclusion standards of 2009 that doesn't really have a place in the Wikipedia in 2024. (That it has been tagged for notability concerns—albeit as a WP:CORP failure rather than GNG—since 2018—three years before the 2021 RfC that affirmed that GNG is the minimum standard in this topic area—probably should have been an early indicator that this article needed to go.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 26 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shaadi Impossible

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_One_(Pakistan)#Telefilms: (Page for director is a Redirect) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not. Plenty of good refs which indicates notability [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] Libraa2019 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, But there's no mention whatsoever of the subject in sources # 1, 2 and 4, Source # 3, though OK for WP:V, but insufficient for GNG because its WP:ROTM coverage. As for source # 5, SomethingHaute is a WordPress blog per this, which isn't deemed a RS. Source # 6 is only a WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 3 June 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.

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 keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malaal-e-Yaar

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

I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage except some ROTM coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's fairly easy to establish that this was a notable, high-profile production. There might not be any PhD thesis written about its impact on Pakistani literature in the long term, but that would be a bar to high. Most google hits are episodes or link to episodes, but see for example coverage such as [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], etc. --Soman (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most, if not all, are unreliable sources and therefore not enough to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how notability works. It is different to judge potential sources for substantiating claims in the article mainspace, where unreliable sources may be called into question, as opposed to show media coverage to establish notability. Coverage in tabloids or low-quality sources can very well be used to imply notability. I'd counter-ask, what process of WP:BEFORE did you do perform before nomination for deletion? This was nominated, with a nearly copy-paste deletion rationale from a lot of Pakistan-related AfDs in the past days, within 5 minutes from another AfD. --Soman (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I nominated a bunch of pages around the same time doesn't mean I didn't do my homework beforehand. And if my reasons for nominating are similar across different AfDs, it's because the issues with those articles are pretty much the same too. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant coverage on google. Significant coverage on google news about "Malaal-e-Yaar" & "Malaal e Yaar". Libraa2019 (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, WP:ATA. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV#Drama_series: I wouldn't be fiercely opposed to Keep, because there is some coverage (like this https://www.masala.com/tv-reviews/malaal-e-yaar-a-summary-of-the-show-to-date-292294, bylined review) but if all in all it seems insufficient, redirecting it seems a reasonable ATD. A line can be added in the target article. Or more. (It may go without saying but I am opposed to deletion of this) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 04:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 3 June 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.

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KLHU-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arizona. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why articles are deleted, but I found this article in “Edge” search and it provided the information I was looking for. If it had been deleted I would still be looking! The reason I use “Wikipedia” is I almost always find something about what I’m searching for and why I on an annual basis contribute to its support, Thank DWE! 172.56.84.213 (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:40, 3 June 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KHHB-LP

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

Fails WP:GNG; two of the references lead to dead links. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Hawaii. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:06, 26 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CIER-TV

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be fair, at the time this was created Wikipedia extended an automatic presumption of notability to any television station that could be verifiably shown as having a license from the appropriate regulatory authority regardless of whether any other sourcing could be found besides the licensing documents themselves — but that's since been deprecated, and television stations now have to actually be shown to have WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them. But this has none, and I wasn't able to find anything better on a WP:BEFORE search either — even searching for "Ear Falls TV" just got me hits relating to the Northern Access Network, which wasn't this. (Given the timing, it might have indirectly led to this, in that the end of that might have spawned a "we need a proper community television station" movement that culminated in this, but I can't find any evidence to verify that hunch.) Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 23 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJWY-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oregon. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 26 May 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.

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 Baalveer as independent notability has not been substantiated Star Mississippi 02:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baalveer 4

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

References are just interviews. No in-depth found. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The article's subject is notable. Someonewhoisusinginternet ^{(talk | contributions)} 14:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The series is notable, there is no point in deleting the article of a season when the series and rest of the seasons article exists and are notable. Imsaneikigai (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it just started, there is some coverage, and it is the 4th instalment of a franchise. Redirect to the first season (or the 3d) if all in all this is not enough and if waiting for more is unbearable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Baalveer is a hit notable series meant for kids since 2012 with 3 seasons already. Season 4 has just arrived. It deserves to be kept. Pri2000 (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Those who are placing !vote in favour of the article, I want to ask them about the notability of the season itself, not about the series. We don't need a separate Wikipedia page for each of the seasons where the primary page exists and no reviews for the seasons are found. Placing interviews and WP:IMDb links as references is just against WP:ICTFSOURCES. Demonstrate notability or please stop flooding. A MERGE would be better. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(note to Admin) - There is campaign going on per this diff, this diff, this diff regarding this AfD. Is this allowed? Isn't it WP:VOTESTACK? --Twinkle1990 (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:VOTESTACK Posting an appropriate notice on other users' talk pages to notify them about the deletion process is allowed (Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances). I notified them cause they also edit Indian tv show articles, I didn't tell to vote to keep the article so it's not violation of WP:VOTESTACK. M S Hassan (talk) 18:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M S Hassan: how is "please help me save the article by voting" in this diff not a violation of WP:VOTESTACK? Daniel (talk) 23:34, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Just saying that the series is notable doesn’t make this season of the series notable. Maybe the series is notable, but establishing notability for a standalone article on Season 4 requires in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, which, in my opinion, is lacking. These sources are just interviews and announcements. The article currently fails to meet WP:GNG as no in-depth coverage of the subject is found. Do we need to create new pages for every season even when there are no significant sources? Additionally, another issue that the patrolling Admin should address is WP:VOTESTACK, which is the real reason behind these non-policy-based “Keep” votes. GrabUp - Talk 13:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - additionally, the page was created by Sockpuppet user Shabeelko. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I was not asked to come here and yet voted !Keep. So, Twinkle1990, and Grabup, may I ask you to please avoid or better, kindly amend sentences like please stop flooding, real reason behind these non-policy-based “Keep” votes apparently addressed to all Keep !voters. Thank you very much in advance. For the policy/reason backing my !vote, if unclear in my comment, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baalveer 3. I have no further comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank, For confirming. I was not talking about you at all. GrabUp - Talk 13:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same here like Balveer 3 nomination. The sources do not have the quality and depth of coverage needed to warrant a page on this show. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will also say that it is better to have some mention of each season on page Baalveer because of not sufficient coverage on all seasons. RangersRus (talk) 13:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. Page was created by sockpuppet account User:Shabeelko and so is good for WP:G5 speedy deletion. RangersRus (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G5 will not apply to this page now, as the article is substantially edited by others. GrabUp - Talk 13:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer. Unnoticed it. RangersRus (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Baalveer: while not a direct sequel, a section in the main article will not require independent notability. Most of the "Keep" comments here seem to talk about the notability of the Baalveer franchise, not that of Baalveer 4. Please note that Baalveer 3 is also on the chopping block, so merging with that would be a mistake. Owen× ☎ 10:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Baalveer, notability standard not met for this precise series based on sources available and presented, per OwenX this can be folded into main article using non-notability-contributing references. Daniel (talk) 23:36, 4 June 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPAL-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, I did not find any coverage in WP:RS. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:09, 19 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KDEV-LP

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

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wyoming. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 26 May 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.

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. ✗plicit 23:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of SEC men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides unsourced, a majority of those are WP:PRIMARY and dead links besides the YouTube posts, not offering anything to assert notability. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, failing WP:LISTN with mainly WP:ROUTINE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:TERTIARY sources such as YouTube or Tweets, or WP:OR making a list of trivia only suitable for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Sources are press releases, internet forums, and YouTube clips, none of which contribute to notability. Let'srun (talk) 18:30, 31 May 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.

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. ✗plicit 14:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big East men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides unsourced, a majority of those are WP:PRIMARY, some including primary sources are dead links. one that isn't offering much isn't offering much to assert notability. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, failing WP:LISTN with mainly WP:ROUTINE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:TERTIARY sources such as YouTube or Tweets, or WP:OR making a list of trivia only suitable for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the policy of WP:NOTDATABASE. Fails WP:LISTN and probable WP:LISTCRUFT.Bgv. (talk) 06:17, 23 May 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.

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. ✗plicit 23:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big 12 men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides unsourced, a majority of those are WP:PRIMARY, some including primary sources are dead links. one that isn't offering much isn't offering much to assert notability. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, failing WP:LISTN with mainly WP:ROUTINE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:TERTIARY sources such as YouTube or Tweets, or WP:OR making a list of trivia only suitable for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG and WP:NLIST due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV from IRS. Sources are either press releases, internet forums, or are originating from the competing schools and are WP:PRIMARY. Let'srun (talk) 20:59, 31 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVDO-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 26 May 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.

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. ✗plicit 06:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ACC men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides unsourced, one is a YouTube link, four are WP:PRIMARY and one is about the Championship Week. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, failing WP:LISTN with mainly WP:ROUTINE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:TERTIARY sources such as YouTube or Tweets, or WP:OR making a list of trivia only suitable for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find any RS discussing the broadcasters as a group. As such, this fails to meet WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 17:14, 6 June 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.

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. ✗plicit 09:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Ten men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; besides unsourced, a majority of those are dead links, two are forums and some are guides and WP:PRIMARY. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT, failing WP:LISTN with mainly WP:ROUTINE, WP:PRIMARY, WP:TERTIARY sources such as YouTube or Tweets, or WP:OR making a list of trivia only suitable for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I'm guessing this was relisted twice because a previous mass-AfD closed as no consensus? Toadspike [Talk] 09:26, 8 June 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.

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 University of Kansas#Media. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KUJH-LP

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

Fails WP:GNG; merge with University of Kansas#Media. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and Kansas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Kansas#Media: a remnant of the considerably looser inclusion standards of 2006, the brief mention there is probably all we really need in 2024, and a redirect is a valid enough alternative to deletion. (The sourcing is too scant to merit actually merging anything.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 26 May 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.

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. ✗plicit 14:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of 68 Ventures Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources that is not a dead link per WP:RS; one is WP:PRIMARY, one is a dead Twitter post, one is a media guide, and another is about the coverages to all 18 Bowl games. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. Besides being by a banned sock. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and Alabama. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of broadcasters for a low level, almost unknown (I'd never heard of it) bowl game. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN. There is no way that we need a list of broadcasters for every game. It is suitable for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and non-notable article. Policy citations have been said already. Evident WP:LISTCRUFT. Bgv. (talk) 06:17, 23 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 05:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KJIB-LP

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

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 26 May 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.

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 WVXF. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEON-LP

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

Notable only on local level, Fox affiliation notwithstanding. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WVXF: it is mentioned there as the predecessor of WVXF's Fox subchannel, which might be enough to make it a valid alternative to deletion. (It does seem odd to think of a Fox affiliate as "not independently notable", but this appears to be one of those rare cases.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 26 May 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.

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 Hum TV#Telefilms. Star Mississippi 15:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Ki Chandni

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this and this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV#Telefilms: is mentioned there. There are currently SO MANY Pakistan-related ongoing Afds including a lot concerning films or series that I would like to suggest redirects for all them, including potential future ones. I am therefore inviting future nominators of such pages to consider redirects, in the future, for the pages they find non-notable, without initiating AfDs, whenever they think redirects could be appropriate and if that seems possible. It is almost impossible for interested and willing users to verify and improve all of them at the same time, and even to take the time to check sources and content in order to !vote. This might become an issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, I don't mind redirects, but the problem is the page keeps getting recreated. I have seen that if we revert and redirect, it turns into an edit war. It's better to just delete the page. If the subject is notable, someone can always create a draft and submit it for the main namespace. I know redirects are "cheap," but they're WP:COSTLY too and lead to unwanted edit wars. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It is as easy to ask for page protection of the Redirected page through the rpp script as it is to XFd/PROD/tag a page for notability via TWINKLE, if potential (or real) edit war is really you concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:47, 26 May 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.

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 Asghar Nadeem Syed#TV plays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaan'nisar

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. Not to be confused with coverage of 2024 TV drama with the same name. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Asghar_Nadeem_Syed#TV_plays: Also see https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/01-Dec-2016/jaan-nisar-a-compelling-drama-on-police-urges-reforms-in-the-vital-organ-of-the-state. Not opposed to Keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Pakistan is a sensational news site. Their coverage can be used for WP:V, but not for GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) I !voted R. 2) did I mention GNG? 3) Since you did, may I ask if there is a consensus to back your assertion? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 02:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG. There is in-depth coverage in Dawn ([18]). Daily Pakistan and The Express Tribune articles are additional in-depth articles (given by Mushy and others). Redirect per Mushy. 2A04:4A43:958F:F103:D4FD:4246:32DF:30D4 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 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.

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 no consensus‎. as there is disagreement if this article complies with WP:NLIST. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monday Night Football results (2010–present)

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

Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides being mostly unsourced; they consists of WP:PRIMARY, announcements, some appears to be rewritten from each other. Most of those are about the game itself, others are dead or redirected pages. Barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Because we need to continue edit for September as a Schedule Release Andrei Kenshin (talk) 13:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, all three deletion attempts of the lists of Monday Night Football games should be in a single nomination (three bites at the apple?). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, I agree with Randy Kryn. These nominations would be better done together, probably along with List of NFL on ABC results. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and failing WP:LISTN as the topic of Monday Night Football results falls under WP:ROUTINE coverage of the NFL. Conyo14 (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTSTATS would not apply as the information is explained, and WP:NOTROUTINE covers the nominated articles (which should be combined by the nominator as soon as possible because now editors are commenting) as typical and encyclopedic. Will comment further when I reply to the nomination. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop bludgeoning. My !vote is final. Conyo14 (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bludgeoning? Please strike that, thanks. And countering misinformation is, I think, allowed. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merging multiple deletion discussions into a single AfD is a nomination choice, not a valid reason for procedural close, unless another AfD for the same page is already in progress. Please address the specific article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a sensible way of organizing this data. As far as WP:NLIST, CBS Sports organizes information this way [19], as do teams such as the Dallas Cowboys [20]. As far as WP:ROUTINE, that is an argument against articles for individual games, Routine events such as sports matches ... may be better covered as part of another article. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me I think we either need to keep all of the results articles or delete them all (which includes TNF, SNF, NFL Network exclusive game series and also NFL on ABC results) since it doesn’t make sense to delete one and not the others, and same reasoning in keeping as well, plus if applicable we need to match the timelines a bit, make a single article just for ABC exclusive years, and another for ESPN years, and a final for ABC/ESPN together, since it doesn’t make sense to break it up every 20 years either Hoopstercat (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NLIST which states "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Monday Night Football was a notable TV show, looked forward to every week in the era of three or four networks. It was a national event, only the best games were slated for Monday night. And it made stars of its announcers. Then per Walsh90210, who presents a good case. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 31 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. as there is disagreement over whether this article complies with WP:NLIST. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monday Night Football results (1990–2009)

AfDs for this article:

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

Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides being mostly unsourced; most of those are about the game itself, others consists of WP:PRIMARY, YouTube and dead or redirected pages. Barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, all three deletion attempts of the lists of Monday Night Football games should be in a single nomination (three bites at the apple?). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that previously, they never go well. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, I agree with Randy Kryn. These nominations would be better done together, probably along with List of NFL on ABC results. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and failing WP:LISTN as the topic of Monday Night Football results falls under WP:ROUTINE coverage of the NFL. Conyo14 (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I answered this at another one of these multiple nomination attempts, SpacedFarmer please combine these as everyone who has answered so far has copied their answers to all three noms and we shouldn't have to do that. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop bludgeoning. My !vote is final. Also, considering that it is the nom's choice to combine them or not, a procedural close would not be a valid !vote. Let them decide whether they want to do it or not. Conyo14 (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: As I have commented, I've tried before but they go disastrously wrong. I cannot see what difference will this makes. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merging multiple deletion discussions into a single AfD is a nomination choice, not a valid reason for procedural close, unless another AfD for the same page is already in progress. Please address the specific article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a sensible way of organizing this data. As far as WP:NLIST, CBS Sports organizes information this way [21], as do teams such as the Dallas Cowboys [22]. As far as WP:ROUTINE, that is an argument against articles for individual games, Routine events such as sports matches ... may be better covered as part of another article. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST which states "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Monday Night Football was a notable TV show, looked forward to every week in the era of three or four networks. It was a national event, only the best games were slated for Monday night. And it made stars of its announcers. Then per Walsh90210, who presents a good case. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:33, 31 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. as there is disagreement over whether this article complies with WP:NLIST. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Monday Night Football results (1970–1989)

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

Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides being mostly unsourced; both sources are about the game and nothing to do with the TV coverage or just a mere mention and another is a redirect link; not doing anything to help this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to trim and merge it into Monday Night Football. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, all three deletion attempts of the lists of Monday Night Football games should be in a single nomination (three bites at the apple?). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close, I agree with Randy Kryn. These nominations would be better done together, probably along with List of NFL on ABC results. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and failing WP:LISTN as the topic of Monday Night Football results falls under WP:ROUTINE coverage of the NFL. Conyo14 (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merging multiple deletion discussions into a single AfD is a nomination choice, not a valid reason for procedural close, unless another AfD for the same page is already in progress. Please address the specific article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a sensible way of organizing this data. As far as WP:NLIST, CBS Sports organizes information this way [23], as do teams such as the Dallas Cowboys [24]. As far as WP:ROUTINE, that is an argument against articles for individual games, Routine events such as sports matches ... may be better covered as part of another article. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is pretty good. Are there more from the time period that's mentioned? The 2nd is considered WP:PRIMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be considered primary? A football team is not the broadcaster or the television network, they just run onto the field and play, so I'm missing what's primary about it. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Dallas Cowboys website (owned by the NFL) producing something about themselves would not be independent, thus WP:PRIMARY per their results of the team they play on the field. Conyo14 (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST which states "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." Monday Night Football was a notable TV show, looked forward to every week in the era of three or four networks. It was a national event, only the best games were slated for Monday night. And it made stars of its announcers. Then per Walsh90210, who presents a good case. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:31, 31 May 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.

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 Devatha - Anubandhala Alayam#Adaptations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muthazhagu (TV series)

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

Originally deleted in 2023 under the title Muthazhagu. Recreated under disambiguation by sock and G5 removed by other user. Tagged since March for additional sources and none added. Search for additional sourcing found nothing but WP:NEWSORGINDIA, mentions, or otherwise unreliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 07:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devatha_-_Anubandhala_Alayam#Adaptations: if REALLY a series that has >500 episodes on a notable network can be considered non-notable... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's no inherent notability for having 500 episodes. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

705, now.(:D) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Devatha_-_Anubandhala_Alayam#Adaptations. Poor sources. RangersRus (talk) 12:51, 20 May 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.

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 List of NYPD Blue characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Kelly (NYPD Blue)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Character that was in under 30 episode. Article is all plot. Cant find anything good. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, Fictional elements, Television, and New York. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LA Times still has content on Caruso's exit from this role. That was on the first page of a Google search, so I suspect there may be more. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The problem with that source, and many others in reliable sources I'm finding, is that they aren't about the fictional character as much as they are on the actor and the real-world consequences from his exit from the show. Great sources for David Caruso's article, but not so great for an article on John Kelly. This article, from New York (magazine) and this one from the NYT were the best two I found so far that actually do talk about the character a bit in addition to the actor, though they still aren't super great in that regard. Rorshacma (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage of one is coverage of the other. We don't judge why RS'es cover fictional elements, just whether and how they do. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coverage of the actor, David Caruso, is not coverage of the fictional character, John Kelly. The article from the LA Times you linked is entirely about the real life actor, David Caruso, and his career. There is no actual information on any fictional elements in it. Rorshacma (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of NYPD Blue characters - As I still have not found any better coverage of the character, and I don't believe the couple of articles I mentioned above are sufficient to support an independent article, I'm going to go ahead and formally recommend a Merge to the main character list at this point. As the character list currently has no information on the character, just a link to this article, a basic summary of the character should be merged over. Rorshacma (talk) 02:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if you can properly source it. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:50, 25 May 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.

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 stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WFWG-LD

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

No substantial operating history other than being a diginet coatrack. Should be redirected to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: pretty much per nom. It's a run-of-the-mill 2010s-established DTV America/HC2/Innovate station where the non-national content and the significant coverage are equally nonexistent. Another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination from last year. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:57, 18 May 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.

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 TV One (Pakistan)#Drama series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kasak Rahay Ge

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_One_(Pakistan)#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:08, 21 May 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.

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 Sarwat Nazir#Plays and dramas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aas (TV series)

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sarwat_Nazir#Plays_and_dramas. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:06, 21 May 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.

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 Eveready Pictures#Television. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karamat-e-Ishq

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Eveready_Pictures#Television: (as link to director in page is to a different person) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:03, 21 May 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.

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 Nadeem Baig (director)#Television. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omer Dadi Aur Gharwale

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nadeem_Baig_(director)#Television -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:00, 21 May 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.

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 Yasir Nawaz#Television serials. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dil, Diya, Dehleez (TV series)

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage except some namechecks coverage and much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yasir_Nawaz#Television_serials: or to the novel that the series adapts. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:58, 21 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umer Naru

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

Fails NACTOR since he didn't have major roles in TV dramas. The subject also doesn't seems to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Theatre. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, the subject fails to meet WP:NACTOR as there are no significant roles in notable films or dramas. It also fails to meet WP:GNG since the sources are just interviews or passing mentions. His own words can’t make him notable; it requires multiple in-depth coverages from reliable independent sources to establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 09:01, 24 May 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.

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 ARY Digital#Drama series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kaafir (Pakistani TV series)

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

I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this, this and this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: could be reasonably redirected to the page about the director if the one-paragraph appraisal im Dawn Humayun Saeed’s negative role in Kaafir actually made one feel disgusted by his character. This drama proved how his star quality and ability to reach to the audience never fails. The good vs. evil; directed by Shahid Shafaat gave us the story Shahan Ali Khan (Humayun Saeed) who is living a dual life; in front of his family he pretended to be virtuous but resorted to his evil and malicious side when away from them. The twists were woven captivatingly into the narrative although the play did go a little over board with its bold dialogues and settings. ~~and this review (https://www.thequint.com/entertainment/hot-on-web/zee-5-kaafir-dia-mirza-mohit-raina)~~ for example ~~are~~ is not judged sufficient. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, I'm fine with redirection. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the opening sentence, Zee 5's web series Kaafir is a historical drama that explores the inhuman situation of Pakistani prisoners in India. So it is a web series of Zee5, not related to ARY drama. Redirect is the way. 2A04:4A43:920F:F722:28B7:A2BE:8E49:C6C3 (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, 2A04:4A43:920F:F722:28B7:A2BE:8E49:C6C3, indeed, silly me. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mushy Yank provided source, also easily passes WP:NTV, broadcasted on national television channel ARY Digital. Libraa2019 (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, But NTV is an essay, not a policy. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Caution: Arguing with and sometimes just commenting on each individual who disagrees with you risks moving in a disruptive direction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Saqib and Mushy. The Quint article is about a different web series and there is nothing in-depth in reliable refs. 188.30.176.151 (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Please provide a redirect target article if that is the option you are arguing for.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Target: If redirect is chosen Shahid Shafaat#Television (director) is imv the best target. List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama_series is another possible option. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama_series Saqib (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mushy Yank & significant coverage found as listed above. 2404:3100:140A:E94E:1:0:1502:71AA (talk) 08:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 2404:3100:140A:E94E:1:0:1502:71AA, Hello again - OK and where is that significant coverage listed above? All I see is just one single coverage which is not enough for GNG. — Saqib (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama_series: a couple sentences is not SIGCOV which is the most I see in the sources. S0091 (talk) 18:47, 15 June 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.

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 TV One (Pakistan)#Drama series. Star Mississippi 15:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Munkir (TV series)

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_One_(Pakistan)#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:45, 26 May 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.

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 ARY Digital#Long format/Soaps. Star Mississippi 15:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kab Mere Kehlaoge

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet GNG. Sources are show listings and a nomination for a non-notable award. S0091 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Long_format/Soaps -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:46, 26 May 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.

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 Sadia Jabbar#Former productions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mujhe Beta Chahiye

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sadia_Jabbar#Former_productions -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:20, 22 May 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.

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 TV One (Pakistan)#Drama series. Star Mississippi 15:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seep (TV series)

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this and this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_One_(Pakistan)#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:46, 26 May 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.

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 TV One (Pakistan)#Drama series. Star Mississippi 15:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khuwabzaadi

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_TV_One_(Pakistan)#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:46, 26 May 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.

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 Aliya Bukhari#Dramas. Star Mississippi 15:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aadat

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:17, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aliya_Bukhari#Dramas: listed there (just added it) (WRITER) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark. This time, though, I'm adding the observation that I'm already tired of my own copy/paste and wish we'd noticed this the day these nominations were made to consider speedy close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doczilla, But what's wrong with nomination reason being the same? And I'm aware of the backlog, so I've stopped from making nominations for quite some time. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying and pasting the nominating rationale over and over gives the impression that the nominator is not studying each article on its own merit well before putting it on the chopping block. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doczilla, I understand your concerns, but that's not the case. I'm fully aware of the potential negative consequences of intentionally making such disruptive nominations. My nominations are legit. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [25] i am doubting WP:Before is done or not. Why a series broadcasted in 2017 need nomination discussion now as many Pakistani websites remove old coverage from their websites and if its the case then all the old films/television related articles should be removed from wikipidea. Libraa2019 (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, This is a WP:ATA. Unless the source is unreliable or dubious, old archives can always be found. And if you doubt that I haven't done WP:BEFORE, why don't you provide some solid coverage (not some Google searches or even ROTM coverage) from RS that help establish WP:GNG, instead of doubting my intentions? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:13, 28 May 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.

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 Hum TV#Anthology series as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shareek-e-Hayat

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some namechecks coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV#Anthology_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not. It was broadcasted in 2013 and many Pakistani newspapers remove old coverage from their websites. Why a series broadcasted in 2013 need nomination discussion after more than a decade and if its the case then all the old films/television related articles should be nominated and removed from wikipidea. It received some coverage as one can see here [26] Libraa2019 (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, This is a WP:ATA. Unless the source is unreliable or dubious, old archives can always be found. If you doubt that I haven't done WP:BEFORE, why don't you provide some solid coverage (not some Google searches or even ROTM coverage) from RS that help establish WP:GNG, instead of doubting my intentions? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:33, 28 May 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.

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 A-Plus TV#Drama serials as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shehr-e-Ajnabi

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A-Plus_TV#Drama_serials -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not. It was broadcasted in 2013 and many Pakistani newspapers remove old coverage from their websites. Why a series broadcasted in 2013 need nomination discussion after more than a decade, and if its the case then all the old films/television related articles should be removed from wikipidea. It received some coverage as one can see here [27]. Libraa2019 (talk) 09:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, Again - This is a WP:ATA. Unless the source is unreliable or dubious, old archives can always be found. If you doubt that I haven't done WP:BEFORE, why don't you provide some solid coverage (not some Google searches or even ROTM coverage) from RS that help establish WP:GNG, instead of doubting my intentions? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:00, 28 May 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.

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 Amin Iqbal#Television as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Muhallay Ki Haveli

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amin_Iqbal#Television: director -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination i guess. I am doubting whether WP:Before is done or not. It was broadcasted in 2013 and many Pakistani newspapers remove old coverage from their websites. Why a series broadcasted in 2013 need nomination discussion after more than a decade, and if its the case then all the old films/television related articles should be removed from wikipidea. It received some coverage as one can see here [28] Libraa2019 (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, This is a WP:ATA. Unless the source is unreliable or dubious, old archives can always be found. And if you doubt that I haven't done WP:BEFORE, why don't you provide some solid coverage (not some Google searches or even ROTM coverage) from RS that help establish WP:GNG, instead of doubting my intentions? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:17, 28 May 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.

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 Fahad Mustafa#Selected television as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Hamrahi

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fahad_Mustafa#Selected_television: producer -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:42, 26 May 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.

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 Hum TV#Drama series as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 15:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kissey Apna Kahein

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first source is a brief mention, second appears to be a listing (upcoming shows) and Pakistan.web is a forum so not RS, S0091 (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV#Drama_series: listed there (different sp.) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i am doubting WP:Before done or not. Series broadcasted in two different networks, as Kisay Apna Kahain at ARY Digital and as Badaltay Rishtay at Zee Zindagi [29], [30][31]. The series broadcasted in 2014 is likely notable considering these sources as most of the Pakistani newspapers remove that much old coverage. I am unable to understand why multiple serials broadcasted in 2013,14 need nomination discussion after almost a decade. Libraa2019 (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, Could you offer evidence that Kissey Apna Kahein is AKA Badaltay Rishtay? Meanwhile I'd like to evaluate provided coverage. This coverage by Friday Times and this coverage by Daily Pakistan is merely WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and are insufficient for WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:30, 29 May 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.

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 Waseem Abbas#Television serials. Star Mississippi 02:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ladoon Mein Pali

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Waseem_Abbas#Television_serials: director -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not as received some coverage [32] [33] [34], [35]. Also it was broadcasted in 2014 and many Pakistani newspapers remove old coverage from their websites. Why a series broadcasted in 2014 need nomination discussion after more than a decade ~~or their is some hidden agenda behind it.~~ Libraa2019 (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, Let me evaluate each source individually.
  1. This coverage by Daily Times is limited to a single line which means it is ROTM and this makes it insufficient for establishing WP:GNG.
  2. Both Daily Pakistan's coverage (this and this) is merely WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS
  3. This Daily Times' coverage also merely WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS.
  I suggest you to please refrain from making WP:ATA and/or accuse me of being on some hidden agenda [36]—Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've strike off that comments so no need to highlight and as the admin said you copy pasted same wordings in almost every nomination, therefore it seems you have not done research before. The series broadcasted in 2014 is likely notable considering these sources as most of the newspaper remove that much old coverage and if it does'nt meet notability then why it was not nominated by you earlier and after a decade suddenly all of these AFD's. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Libraa2019, Is it against the rules if my rationale are same across all the nominations? By the way, my reasoning isn't copied verbatim if you look closely. Each article is evaluated individually and I've done my homework (WP:BEFORE) before hitting the AfD button. And that is why sufficient coverage in RS haven't been found yet which means my nominations are legit. And unless the sources are unreliable or dubious, old archives can typically be found, so your excuse doesn't make sense to me. Regarding why am I tossing these nominations out now? Simple. I've just decided it's high time we clean up the mess around here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: input from disinterested parties would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, clearly not notable 48JCL TALK 10:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK I am fine with redirection as well. — Saqib (talk) 20:44, 13 June 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.

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 Syed Ahmed Kamran. Star Mississippi 15:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shehryar Shehzadi

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

I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Syed_Ahmed_Kamran: director -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not as received some coverage [37] and mention [38]. The series broadcasted in 2012 is likely notable considering these sources as most of the Pakistani newspapers remove that much old coverage. I am doubting why a series broadcasted in 2012 need nomination discussion after more than a decade. Libraa2019 (talk)

But this coverage by Dawn and this coverage by Daily Pakistan s merely WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and are insufficient for WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:33, 29 May 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.

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 Angeline Malik#As a director. Star Mississippi 15:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sasural Ke Rang Anokhay

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angeline_Malik#As_a_director: creator+director -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:TVSeries, broadcasted in Pakistan on Hum TV as Sasural Ke Rang Anokhay and in India on Zee Zindagi as Yeh Sasuraal Bemisaal. A series broadcasted in 2012 is likely notable as most of the Pakistani newspapers remove that much old coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, Please avoid WP:ATA and provide coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG. Also - WP:TVSeries is an essay, not even a guideline. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its not necessary to reply every comment & editor who oppose your views. The history at mutiple AFD's indicates that i provide sources and you reject them [39] so please leave some things to others. Libraa2019 (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Libraa2019, You've consistently voted to keep based on ROTM coverage, Trivial mention as well as unreliable sources, so it's crucial to counter your argument. And just because an AFD closed in your favor doesn't mean my nomination wasn't legit. Don't forget, several of my AFDs were closed as deleted despite having keep votes, including yours.So let's set that aside and focus on discussing this AFD. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - No i only voted to Keep which are initiated by you as you copy pasted the same rationale for almost dozens of nomination. Right now, many AFD's are live [40] but i have not voted Keep because other editors do research before initiated AFD's but i am doubting such research is done at your side or not. Libraa2019 (talk) 19:07, 1 June 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.

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 ARY Digital#Drama series. Star Mississippi 15:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Main Gunehgar Nahi

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination i guess. I am doubting whether WP:Before is done or not. It was broadcasted in 2013 and many Pakistani newspapers remove old coverage from their websites. Why a series broadcasted in 2013 need nomination discussion now and if its the case then all the old films/television related articles should be removed from wikipidea. It received some coverage as one can see here [41] Libraa2019 (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, This is a WP:ATA. Unless the source is unreliable or dubious, old archives can always be found. And if you doubt that I haven't done WP:BEFORE, why don't you provide some solid coverage (not some Google searches or even ROTM coverage) from RS that help establish WP:GNG, instead of doubting my intentions? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:15, 28 May 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.

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 Babar Javed#Filmography. Star Mississippi 15:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mann Ke Moti

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

Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this etc. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Babar_Javed#Filmography: (producer, listed there) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same rationale for almost every nomination i guess. I am doubting whether WP:Before is done or not. It was broadcasted in 2013 and many websites remove old coverage. It received some mentions as one can see here [42] Libraa2019 (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:ATA. Unless the source is unreliable or dubious, old archives can always be found. If you doubt that I haven't done WP:BEFORE, why don't you provide some solid coverage (not some Google searches or even ROTM coverage) from RS that help establish WP:GNG, instead of doubting my intentions? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:00, 28 May 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.

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 Tamasha (TV series) as a viable ATD with no indication input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 15:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tamasha season 2

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

Tamasha Season 2 hasn't received coverage that should satisfy GNG. The only coverage I found are ROTM - all from same publication - like this, this, and this one. Not enough because Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. and provided coverage is without bylines. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tamasha (TV series) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator appears to have copied and pasted the nominating rationale for another rush of AfD nominations, despite the numerous times others have cautioned the nominator about making a lot of nominations in a rush, so I am copying and pasting this relist remark.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:35, 26 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Friend: The Three Bachelors

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009. No good hits from GSearch, GNews and GNews Archives. Redirect to Dear Friend (TV series) as per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 05:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Some coverage of the show [43], but it's a trivial mention. I don't find any other sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 25 May 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.

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 Angeline Malik#As a director. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky Ka Dulha

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

I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage like this and this which isn't sufficient to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angeline_Malik#As_a_director: listed there (just added it with a ref). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angeline_Malik#As_a_director: per Mushy. Does not meet GNG but redirect is sensible ATD option. S0091 (talk) 16:11, 21 May 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.

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 Hum TV#Horror or supernatural series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehboob Aapke Qadmon Main

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

I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage and announcements/press release based coverage like this and this, and pieces by freelancers in RS like this all of which isn't sufficient to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Hum_TV#Horror_or_supernatural_series: listed there. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:34, 18 May 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.

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 NBC Sports Philadelphia#Sports coverage. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eagles Postgame Live

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

No refs on the page for many years and I'm not seeing much that could be considered substantial RS to consider against the inclusion criteria. Possibly as an ATD could merge to NBC Sports Philadelphia JMWt (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Pennsylvania. JMWt (talk) 08:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 08:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NBC Sports Philadelphia#Sports coverage: it is mentioned there, making it a valid-enough alternative to deletion, but there's really nothing to merge (especially since this has been tagged as completely unsourced since 2009). The program itself is a run-of-the-mill postgame show that would not really be expected to merit its own significant coverage. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to NBC Sports Philadelphia#Programming where it is mentioned. No WP:SIGCOV that I could find. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NBC Sports Philadelphia#Sports coverage per suggestions. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:13, 20 May 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.

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philadelphia Union broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and dead links, the only decent source is an announcment for a new announcer; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Pennsylvania. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom ,fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:18, 24 May 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.

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of New England Revolution broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, only consist of a single one about the 2023 season; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Massachusetts. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we just going to keep nominating anything related to do with television on shoddy deletion premises? At worst this should be merged into individual season articles. SportingFlyer T·C 17:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 02:22, 22 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on ABC commentators

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY, one being about one of its commentators and announcements, some being more deserving in an article about the coverage but not this list; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Found this [[44]] (1/3), [[45]] (2/3), [[46]] (3/3), but it appears to just republishing a press release. Probably should be a delete unless better sources can be found. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are being added at this very moment. Thus, far sources for the 1976 Summer Olympics, the 1964 Winter Olympics, and the list of hosts that ABC utilized have been added. Also, a lead section has finally been added. This article should be at the very least, merged with the main ABC Olympic broadcasts as a secondary option. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the new source: some of those are about the announcers, some are about the games itself, one is links to YouTube videos. In short, not helping much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete there is a book on the subject within the ABC Olympic broadcasts article. Willing to change my !vote if sources from the time period are found. Conyo14 (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." The editor that seems to be spending their entire time on wikipedia recently trying to remove pages on TV broadcasts should try reading the article which they cite, which I quoted from. These broadcast articles contain primarily historical information, they do not read like a TV guide "forthcoming Olympics broadcast on ABC on July 27 at 8pm", etc. would be a TV guide. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL applies. All this is, is a list of who presented who, so WP:LISTCRUFT applies. A merger would be better. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 55 sources added since nomination, WP:HEYMAN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ABC Olympic broadcasts: Subject does not have the needed coverage from secondary sources as a grouping to meet the WP:NLIST. Merge as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just about all of the names of the commentators and what respective events that they worked on for each of ABC's Olympic broadcasts that have been listed are for the most part, accounted for reference/sourcing wise. There are now over 200 sources spanning from 1964-1988. Also, the article touches in depth, arguably two of the most significant or well known moments in ABC's Olympic history, Jim McKay's reporting on the 1972 Munich massacre and Al Michaels' calling what would become known as the "Miracle on Ice" in 1980. So it isn't merely just a list of commentators, there's some context behind it. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:59, 7 June 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.

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 keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on CBS commentators

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY, staff rosters and announcements, some being nothing more than a guide; barely much to help this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:LISTN appears to be met with the 4th source in the article, combined with [[47]] and [[48]] describing the commentators as a group. Let'srun (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As of now, about 43 sources have just been added. The hosts section and the 1998 Winter Olympics section as for intents and purposes been extensively covered and referenced, as well as the 1960 Winter Games. This article should be at the very least, merged with the main CBS Olympics broadcasts article as a secondary option. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per nom, I found the same sources as Let'sRun, but they mirror a WP:ROUTINE news source/press release than significant coverage, plus the rest of the list is just WP:OR anyways. Conyo14 (talk) 16:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." The editor that seems to be spending their entire time on wikipedia recently trying to remove pages on TV broadcasts should try reading the article which they cite, which I quoted from. These broadcast articles contain primarily historical information, they do not read like a TV guide "forthcoming Olympics broadcast on CBS on July 27 at 8pm", etc. would be a TV guide. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 20:21, 18 May 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.

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!} 22:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on TNT commentators

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and announcments, some being nothing more than a guide; none of these helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Olympics, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unabale to find any sources discussing this as a group, and as such WP:LISTN is not met. Let'srun (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN. Upon a search I couldn't find anything related to TNT's brief time with the Olympics, specifically who the broadcasting was. Conyo14 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A lot of work has been put in to help improve the notability of this particular article. 47 different references have just been added. A lead section has also been added to help clean up and give some better context to TNT's past Olympics coverage and its background/history. Bare in mind that TNT was the very first American cable television network to broadcast the Olympic Games, supplementing CBS' main coverage of the Winter Games during the duration of the 1990s. This article as it is, should be merged with the main TNT Olympics broadcasts article as a secondary option instead of outright junking it. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REFBOMBING. Some of these do not count as WP:RS, most of these focuses on the events itself rather than the boradcasting. Also, they do not focus on TNT's part with the Olympics. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat myself, why is simply deleting this particular article the absolutely first option (regardless of whether or not there are any reliable sources being provided) instead of for instance, merging it to the main TNT Olympic broadcasts article? Also, if you're going to essentially tell somebody that the sources that they provided "aren't good enough" then please be more specific in regards to what's exactly "wrong with them" and how to improve upon that. Personally, an article should be deleted as an absolute last resort or option if there's absolutely little way that the article can be remotely improved or expanded upon. Otherwise, it's not really productive to constantly reply or react to anybody with a contrary point of view or opinion on what do with an article. BornonJune8 (talk), 07:56, 20 May 20 2024

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 47 references have been added and the list has been significantly improved. Deserves further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After a further review of the sourcing, this still fails to meet the WP:NLIST as the commentators aren't discussed as a group and there is evidently some WP:REFBOMBING going on here. Let'srun (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDATABASE. Orientls (talk) 13:00, 27 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Malinaccier (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympics on CBC commentators

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced and dead links, these consists of WP:PRIMARY and announcments, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Canada. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Olympics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I found only this so far [49]. So, maybe more exist? Otherwise it's WP:LISTCRUFT mixed with WP:OR. Conyo14 (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source appears to be from the CBC, and as such isn't independent. I can't find much else so far. Let'srun (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should as a secondary option, be merged with the main CBC Olympic broadcasts article. Otherwise, a lot of great effort has hopefully recently been made to provide better context and information (there are now, about 60 references that have been added) behind the extensive history of CBC's Olympic Games coverage in Canada dating back to the early 1960s and to make it less "bare bones" looking. Here's some additional information on CBC's Olympic telecasts of recent times: Steve Armitage retires after 50-plus years calling Olympics and more for CBC, Famed CBC announcer Steve Armitage will miss Rio Olympics over heart problems, CBC’s Devin Heroux shares how he won’t be going to Beijing after December positive COVID test, illustrating wider media concerns, With Canada’s women’s curling team eliminated from Olympic medal contention, Canadian Twitter is upset…at the CBC’s Colleen Jones?, Support pours in for CBC’s Elliotte Friedman, who’s still hard on himself, VIDEO: CBC announcer mixes up Michael Phelps and Ryan Lochte during 200 IM Final, CBC hot mic catches swimming analyst saying 14-year-old “died like a pig”. Also from the CBC Media Centre, CBC'S TOKYO 2020 BROADCAST TEAM, CBC'S OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES BEIJING 2022 .... A "full" list of CBC's television personalities can be found here. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the sources; the first three sources are about the announcers, the one about Canada’s women’s curling team (source 4) are about the team, the other three about the games itself and the last two are WP:PRIMARY. Anything supporting this list is doing nothing for it. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with this analysis. Let'srun (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep copy/paste rationale, no evidence of a WP:BEFORE check. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Before you accuse me of a copy/paste rationale, I have made a WP:BEFORE check. I already debunked the new sources above. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 62 sources have been added since nomination. WP:HEYMAN.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This does not meet the WP:LISTN as the group isn't discussed in non-primary sources or really any RS whatsoever. The sources are either YouTube links, press releases, blogs, or are from the CBC. Another example of WP:REFBOMBING. Let'srun (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 30 May 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.

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 Playoff Bowl#Broadcasters. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playoff Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, those sourced are from forums, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:LISTN as no sources discuss the broadcasters as a group. Let'srun (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Playoff Bowl#Broadcasters, where the same information resides; the older table style is a tell-tale that this article was abandoned years ago once it was merged there and it's barely been edited or glanced since. Nate • (chatter) 23:51, 17 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of AFL Championship Game broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists entirely of forums, if not dead; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN as a WP:LISTCRUFT that would only be used for trivia purposes. Conyo14 (talk) 17:42, 16 May 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.

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. Owen× ☎ 22:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFC Championship Game broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, the majority of those are sources are from forums. The reliable sources are about the announcers, not much else, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN as a WP:LISTCRUFT that would only be used for trivia purposes. Conyo14 (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:LISTN is not met due to a lack of RS. Let'srun (talk) 20:13, 23 May 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.

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 keep‎. I'm not sure why this discussion kept being relisted as there is a clear consensus to Keep this article. A move discussion can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL Championship Game broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the most ardent NFL fans. Fails WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced; besides being minimal, none of the two are extant, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This would have to have been from a while ago, so sources could exist on newspapers.com. However, this article stands as WP:LISTCRUFT and mainly consists of WP:OR. Conyo14 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have agreed with the previous AfDs directed at lists of broadcasters of various college bowl games and conference championship games, but there is room in the encyclopedia for a list when it is about the biggest game of the year. In recent history, that's the Super Bowl, and nobody has questioned the notability of List of Super Bowl broadcasters. The Super Bowl is not only the pinnacle of careers on the field but also in the broadcast booth. The best of the best are tabbed to broadcast the Super Bowl, and a list of its broadcasters serves a valid purpose as a navigational list. In the pre-Super Bowl era, the NFC Championship Game was the pinnacle, and the same rationale applies. Cbl62 (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

My take: There is room for these lists in a legitimate encyclopedia if limited to top-level events. E.g., List of Super Bowl broadcasters, List of World Series broadcasters, List of NBA Finals broadcasters, List of Wimbledon broadcasters, List of Indianapolis 500 broadcasters, List of Stanley Cup Finals broadcasters. Being the broadcaster at such an event is the pinnacle for sports broadcasters, and the lists serve a useful navigational function in tracking sports broacasting history at the highest level. It is when we allow these things to creep to the middle and lower levels that we risk dippig into fancruft. Cbl62 (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Super Bowl though. I'd be willing to change my !vote if sources are found regarding these specific game(s)' broadcasting crews. Conyo14 (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL Championship Game was the top championship game in pro football during its time. The Super Bowl is that today. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody can doubt that. The can't be said for the one about the FA Cup final, Moto GP, Ligue 1, Serie A, Bundesliga and the French Open (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination)) SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Cbl62, being what was at the time the biggest American football game of the year. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can all agree with that. This is not intended to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I wish people stop using "the biggest sporting event of the year" as an excuse to keep. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: You wish people would stop referencing the fact that a list is based on a notable event, and the notability of said event, as a reason/relevant point when voting to keep something? That's a silly concept and definitely not an "excuse". Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: Reliable sources discussing the broadcasters for this game as a group seemingly do not exist, and as such, this article fails to meet WP:LISTN. Notability is WP:NOTINHERETED. Let'srun (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A list can serve valid navigational purpose and not have sources discussing all entries as a group. In any event, here (link) is a piece by the Pro Football Researchers Association that does exactly what you ask. Cbl62 (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good start, but I'd need to see at least one more source like that before I'd be inclined to switch my vote. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this functions as a navigational list such that we don't need sources dealing with all entries as a group (even though such a source has been found). This was the top pro football game in the world in the years prior to the Super Bowl (where nobody questions the validity of the List of Super Bowl broadcasters) and has equal historical value. Cbl62 (talk) 10:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Cbl62. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Rlendog (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the problem with this article is that it only gives a list format of who did play-by-play, color commentating, and also on-field reporting. The notes section is actually much more reliable as a History of the NFL championship broadcasts article startup than maintaining it as a list. However, with only one good source from Cbl62, it doesn't seem like this article maintains WP:LISTN. Saying, "it was the biggest event of the time, surely sources exist...", please provide more and I will change my !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to History of the NFL championship broadcasts, per Conyo14, with the footnote material about the various quirks of the broadcasts being moved to the body of the article ahead of the list, and the list being made a lesser section of the article. BD2412 T 14:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep and move? Or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move per BD2412. My previous rationale still applies, this does not meet the WP:LISTN but can meet the GNG though a rewrite. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 10 June 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.

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!} 03:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Zueva

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

Significance for WP:BIO is not visible. Typically, articles in other language sections were made by the same participant with the only interest in Wikipedia in the form of creating articles about this person.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 01:45, 16 May 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 May 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, Theatre, Netherlands, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the apparent COI, all the film and TV roles appear to be bit parts, except for the short film. I'd say WP:TOOSOON. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage about the subject.--Meligirl5 (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After my own research, I second Ssilvers's analysis. Can add that there are some sources [50][51] but not independent enough for the GNG. The professional guideline isn't met either. gidonb (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the the sources identified by Gidonb are valid and establish notability through GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Delete. Typical cross-wiki advertising/spam, fake sources (paid articles), does not match WP:BIO. On ru.wiki same article deleted, creator became the subject of a request to CU. Кронас (talk) 19:16, 19 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capital City Connection

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

Completely unsourced, and tagged as such since 2012 without ever having any sources added, article about a minor local public access television program. As always, television shows are not automatically notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability, so nothing here is "inherently" notable without sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Alabama. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:38, 23 May 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.

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!} 03:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA Sunday Showcase on ABC results

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

This fails GNG and WP:NLIST; there is no evidence that the results of games on the NBA Sunday Showcase "[have] been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Nor does this list serve a valid navigational purpose; the individual games are not notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of (even interesting) information. Obviously a lot of work went into this page, but unfortunately I don't see any notability interest that warrants keeping it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contains barely anything else other than WP:PRIMARY. A list that can be useful as a seasonal page but that already exists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT that fails WP:LISTN. It's not even useful as trivia. Conyo14 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources discussing these results are lacking here. Fails WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 21:04, 16 May 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.

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!} 03:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA Saturday Primetime on ABC results

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

This fails GNG and WP:NLIST; there is no evidence that the results of games on the NBA Saturday Primetime on ABC series "[have] been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Nor does this list serve a valid navigational purpose; the individual games are not notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a collection of (even interesting) information. Obviously a lot of work went into this page, but unfortunately I don't see any notability interest that warrants keeping it. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list that can be useful as a seasonal page but it already exists. Sources are more to do with the game itself, barely about the TV coverages. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT that fails WP:LISTN. It's not even useful as trivia. Conyo14 (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as a grouping which is not discussed in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 22:09, 16 May 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.

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!} 23:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Bowl broadcasters

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

Obvious unsourced listcruft of a group of broadcasters not notable as a group. Nominating so User:SpacedFarmer can't -1ctinus📝🗨 19:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. hahahahaha, I fell asleep in between edits after a day of work and did not think of this. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...1, 2, 3, 4...WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on additions made post-nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing [WP:LISTN]]. I'm not sure what the relister means by additions? A single source was added since the AfD, and its from IMdB. Similar to the other college bowls, it's WP:LISTCRUFT, with loads of WP:OR that is just trivia. Conyo14 (talk) 04:02, 23 May 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.

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 keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Memoona Qudoos

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

At first glance, the actor appears to be well-known with numerous roles in television serials, films, and what not. However, upon closer inspection, it becomes evident that the subject only had minor roles in the majority of those television serials and films, thus failing to meet NACTOR. Anyone wishing to argue based on GNG must provide THREE, i repeat, THREE of the best coverages in RS -only. ROTM coverage like this, this and even INTERVIEWS like this is not enough to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is notable. In this source her education and how she started is all mentioned [52] and her married life source in this [53].(BeauSuzanne (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- BeauSuzanne, Your comments sound WP:ATA. These coverages can be used for WP:V, but they're not enough to establish WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not talking about WP:V. I am saying that it meets WP:NACTOR. It has mentioned her drama roles and her recent role of Shehna.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    - BeauSuzanne, Could you provide evidence that the subject had major roles? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep because the interviews in rather reliable sources have a presentation that might show her roles are signficant. If not why not DRAFTITY until better sources are found, so as to avoid the risk of constant recreations/deletion and mutual frustration?-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, Roznama92News isn't even a RS. It's just one of the countless Urdu language newspapers circulated in Pakistan. And I wouldn't outright label the interview in The News as a paid placement since I lack evidence, but considering the nature of the questions posed by the interviewer, it's a plausible possibility. Anyhow, I'm fine with DRAFITIFICATION, though. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clean up shouldn't be deletion. Appearing in multiple notable films meets WP:NACTOR though requires whether it is significant or not (though should be); it is a known role in the films. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- SafariScribe, Fwiw - In Pakistani TV dramas, supporting roles do not have the same level of significance as in Western or even Indian TV series. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Then a policy should be initiated in Wikipedia:Village pump. Fwiw also, supporting roles can be notable when it has been done for multiple times. Why then do you see a supporting actor or actress awards? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  SafariScribe, But the fact is she hasn't even really had any supporting roles in the series she's been in so far. No one's provided any evidence for it, not even for dramas like GT Road, Guddu, Farq, Nikah, Kalank, Umm-e-Haniya, and Jaisay Aapki Marzi, which she's known for. So, it seems she's just part of the ensemble cast. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I am not convinced that the GNG or NACTOR have been met. Keep counterarguments have been unconvincing, so I am inclined to side with the nom. Toadspike [Talk] 10:56, 7 June 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.

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 A-Plus TV#Drama serials. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhabbat Yun Bhi Hoti Hai

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. Received some ROTM "Pakistan Media Awards" —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A-Plus_TV#Drama_serials: Not fiercely opposed to Keep, though (awards, so-so coverage) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:17, 24 May 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.

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Azeem Sajjad

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

Fails NACTOR and WP:DIRECTOR since he didn't have major roles in TV dramas, and also the TV dramas and film he directed fail GNG themselves. The subject also doesn't meet GNG. Anyone willing to prove me wrong must either provide Three best coverage references for assessment based on GNG, prove that he had major roles in those TV dramas for meeting NACTOR, or show that the TV dramas/film he directed meet GNG themselves. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 13:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable artist, has been part of notable projects in Pakistani showbiz industry. Failure of some projects doesn't mean that he's no more notable. If that's the case then why do we have articles for his directions. Muneebll (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you demonstrate that the TV dramas/film he directed meet GNG themselves? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage on Azeem Sajjad's role as film-maker in Pakistani media - "Chaudhry is being directed by Azeem Sajjad, whose name previously hit headlines for his 8689 project that starred Saba Qamar." (Dawn), "Azeem Sajjad's upcoming movie is based on the life of late SP Chaudhry Aslam and we have a poster to see that for ourselves." (Dawn), " "Director, actor, writer of his debut film '8969', Azeem Sajjad, has said the flick being released on Dec 2 across the country" (Dawn), "A four-hour-long cut of Chaudhry was directed by Azeem Sajjad that made even less sense (Sajjad’s last venture was the unforgivable 8969). According to the nightmarish behind-the-scenes story, Sajjad overshot the film without coherence, exceeding the budget by a fair number of crores. ", (Dawn), etc. --Soman (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:DIRECTOR seems met as he directed at least 2 notable productions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:55, 26 May 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.

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 ARY Digital#Drama series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Harjai

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:14, 24 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. I don't see a consensus here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bhool (2019 TV series)

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - A WP:NTV series, substantial sources, free images available on Google search. Rather than WP:AfD, should have been tagged for "Additional Citations".Sameeerrr (talk) 22:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

- Sameeerrr, NTV is an essay and you have to provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't understand your approach of providing "THREE" best references. If we were supposed to provide the only three best references, then I wonder Wikipedia would have limited it WP:References section "To add Three Best sources" only. Sameeerrr (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  No, you do not "have to provide" three best sources. WP:THREE, meaning User:RoySmith/Three best sources, is not policy. The word three does not appear anywhere in Wikipedia:Citing sources, nor does it appear anywhere in Wikipedia:References dos and don'ts or Wikipedia:Notability. You keep telling people how things must be done around here, and you keep seeming to indicate that policy says things it does not. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 22:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same rationale for almost every nomination. I am doubting WP:Before is done or not. Series received in-depth coverage [54], [55], [56], [57] Libraa2019 (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, I'd like to evaluate each source individually.
  1. This coverage is ROTM and lacks sig/in-depth on the subject, making it insufficient for establishing WP:GNG, though it may suffice for WP:V.
  2. I couldn't find any mention of the subject in this Dawn Images story.
  3. Similarly, the subject wasn't even mentioned in this The News story.
  4. While this Daily Times coverage looks good apparently, BUT it's worth noting that the author has only contributed three articles under their by-line. Given Daily Times acceptance of guest contributions, such articles might be guest contributions. Thus, while they can be used for WP:V, but they may not good enough for meeting WP:GNG. And lastly, please avoid WP:ATA. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mentioned that you could'nt find subject in provided source 2 and 3, i would like to clarify its also known as Daag as it was previouly titled Daag before release and producers change title afterwords. Libraa2019 (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Libraa2019, OK, I was unaware of this as it wasn't previously stated in the article. But nevertheless, provided coverage (this and this) is still ROTM coverage based on interviews -published in March 2019- to talk about the filming of the series. Remember Existence ≠ Notability. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:21, 30 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Masters series 4

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

Redirect to Interior Design Masters. Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Mostly original research. Dan arndt (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Dan arndt (talk) 07:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:15, 25 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Masters series 3

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

Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Mostly original research. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:14, 25 May 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.

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. ✗plicit 00:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Badal Sesher Pakhi

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

Fails GNG. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 02:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage found other than the announcement of the series. ABP Bengali provides some coverage, as does Etvbharat, but I'm not sure about Etv’s reliability. Both of them are just announcements of the series; no other coverage found. Grabup (talk) 05:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of coverage available. See for example Hindustan Times. ABP and ETV are pretty major outlets as well, for what it's worth. --Soman (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindustan Times article only talks about marriage and doesn't provide any information regarding the series at all. Additionally, when you said "ABP and ETV are pretty major outlets as well," you should know that Republic World is also a major outlet, but it is considered unreliable. Similarly, there is no consensus that ETV and ABP are reliable sources at WP:ICTFSOURCES, but I personally think that ABP should be considered reliable but I question ETV's reliability. GrabUp - Talk 11:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Sun_Bangla#Currently_broadcast. Per nom fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG. The series is an individual television program and is far less notable as it likely airs in only one local media market and not to a broader regional or national audience. Sources are poor with not enough coverage. RangersRus (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 02:16, 25 May 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.

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 Dilawar Malik. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laal Ishq (Pakistani TV series)

(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 00:17, 15 May 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 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First things first—NTV is an essay, not a policy or even a guideline. Secondly, yes, it fails to meet WP:GNG because I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. All I could find is some ROTM coverage which isn't sufficient. For example, this coverage based on interviews doesn't meet GNG because it's not independent of the subject, and this other coverage is more like a press release. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for average hits we have to rely on other industry sources which otherwise may not be good sources but good enough for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Muneebll, But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dilawar_Malik: (director) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:58, 22 May 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.

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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angna (TV series)

(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 00:16, 15 May 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 00:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes it fails to meet GNG because I couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage, such as reviews. Some ROTM coverage like this isn't sufficient. The article is based on several unreliable sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for other dramas we have to rely on other industry sources which otherwise may not be good sources but are fair enough for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And until we have coverage in multiple sources, we can't create an article. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while this could be redirected to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Long_format/Soaps, there seems to be coverage showing it's notable: https://www.hipinpakistan.com/news/1159511 ; https://www.bolnews.com/entertainment/2022/06/angna-handles-trauma-delicately-but-leaves-loose-ends/ and so on. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, HIP is content farm website. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As explained above, this series doesn't have coverage outside of the originating media organization, pretty much limiting any hope of GNG or other notability. I can't find sources about this we'd use either. Oaktree b (talk) 13:17, 29 May 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.

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 Adeel Razzaq#Television. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dulhan (TV series)

(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 00:16, 15 May 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 00:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage. The article relies on unreliable sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for other dramas we have to rely on websites and links which otherwise may not be good sources but are sufficient for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 18:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Muneebll, But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Adeel_Razzaq#Television -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:52, 22 May 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.

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 A-Plus TV#Anthology series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haqeeqat (2019 TV series)

(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 00:15, 15 May 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 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for other dramas we have to rely on websites and links which otherwise may not be good sources but are good enough for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Muneebll, But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A-Plus_TV#Anthology_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:51, 22 May 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.

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 A-Plus TV#Drama serials. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoor Pari

(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 00:15, 15 May 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 00:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes it fails to meet GNG because i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc.The article is based on some namechecks coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While assessing the referencing of Pakistani dramas/series, the dynamics of Pakistani media industry should be considered wherein media groups have their own news and entertainment channels. Normally a news channel from one media group doesn't give coverage to a project of a rival channel unless it's a big hit. So for other dramas we have to rely on websites and links which otherwise may not be good sources but are sufficient for a Pakistani drama. Muneebll (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Muneebll, But still you have to demonstrate that this TV dramas meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That assessment is not based on Wikipedia policy or guidance. In order for an article to be kept it must be demonstrated that it meets WP:GNG at a minimum. Saying that one media group doesn't cover another one is not a reason to keep an article. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A-Plus_TV#Drama_serials: listed there. Some sources can be transferred. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:13, 22 May 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.

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 Barkat Siddiqui#As a director. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Khuda

(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 00:14, 15 May 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 00:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet GNG as i couldn't find sig/in depth coverage such as reviews etc. All I could find is some namechecks coverage like this, this, and this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Barkat_Siddiqui#As_a_director -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:50, 22 May 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.

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 7th Sky Entertainment#Current programmes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ehraam-e-Junoon

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

This TV drama fails to meet GNG as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage in RS. ROTM coverage like this, and namechecks like this is not enough to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A WP:NTV series that meets WP:GNG, substantial sources, free images available on Google search. Rather than WP:AfD, should have been tagged for "Additional Citations".Sameeerrr (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]
- Sameeerrr, NTV is an essay and you have to provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't understand your approach of providing "THREE" best references. If we were supposed to provide the only three best references, then I wonder Wikipedia would have limited it WP:References section "To add Three Best sources" only. There's many citations available on search to improve the article. Sameeerrr (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 7th_Sky_Entertainment#Current_programmes -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:49, 22 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Opinions are all over the map here. Editors interested in a Merge can pursue that option outside of this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1980s

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The events themselves are notable but the topic of whether they appeared or not on television is not. This serves as one massive collection of YouTube links. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I personally find what networks aired what races interesting, but how it is presented in these decade articles is underwhelming (I understand why these pages will probably be deleted). It's also missing what is highly relevant information (up until the late 80s) regarding what sort of broadcast individual races received: live flag-to-flag coverage, joined in progress, tape delayed, condensed tape delayed, or not broadcast at all. The best place for that would be the individual season articles, though. They already have a section listing the entire schedule of races (not the partial schedules we see in some of these articles). A column for the TV network would be simple enough to add to that table and any out of the ordinary details about the nature of the broadcasts could be added to the sections for the individual races (probably not the broadcasting teams since that would be fairly repetitious). --NHL04 (talk) 05:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. @Ajf773: Deletion is not cleanup. Inappropriate content can be removed without needing to delete everything which would potentially be mergeable. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the YT links then you barely have much left other than unsourced entries. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The events are covered in other articles, for example 1980 NASCAR Winston Cup Series and so forth for every year following that. Those lists are sufficient enough to present what is needed. Ajf773 (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am sure this will close as "no consensus" but I am not seeing a point in keeping this collection on Wikipedia. Srijanx22 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Srijanx22: Do you have rationale to provide other than "not seeing a point" in it? You personally not seeing value in it does not mean the subject matter isn't notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this goes as keep or no consensus, this tells you the state of Wikipedia. I do not see how a collection of YouTube links make a list notable. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: As has been told to you in the past, it's not about what the current sourcing is, it's about whether the subject as a whole is notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. The article is a coatrack for a list of (presumably bootleg) Youtube videos, most of which have been taken down. NASCAR on television and radio is a suitable redirect target, but the page history should not be kept. An improved "box score" format for races on pages like 1985 NASCAR Winston Cup Series might include this information, but it would need to be re-created. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand why the page history shouldn't be kept.

The problem becomes that the 60s, 70s, 90s, 2000s, and 2010s list nominations all ended in no consensus, while the 2020 nomination ended in keep. This would leave us with a hole between the 70s and 90s that's just not addressed, and any such attempt to fill said gap may end up being G4'd. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:ELNEVER. Also, I see no reason why the 60s/70s articles should not also be deleted (or why the nominations weren't bundled to avoid that possible outcome). Walsh90210 (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They were initially, but the nominator botched the nomination completely by both forgetting a step and including more than just the "NASCAR on television..." articles. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Walsh90210: I fail to understand why you wanted to note WP:ELNEVER to me. Could you explain? Did you perhaps mean to link something else? Hey man im josh (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep as a valid split per GhostofDanGurney, also bearing in mind that every other decade survived AFD, which would mean that we've got articles on every decade from the 1960s to present except this one, which would be disorderly and doesn't make sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to NASCAR on television and radio. Not seeing any valid use for this standalone. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Stifle: But then wouldn't the parent article be unbalanced, as it would be the only decade to be extensively individually focused on whereas all the others have their own standalones? BeanieFan11 (talk)
  - They can all be merged. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable and splitting from the parent article is a good idea (per GhostofDanGurney). If the article needs to be cleaned up, deletion is not the way to do it. Malinaccier (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable, at least for NASCAR on television and radio. What kind of message does linkdumping bootleg Youtube links sends? We should allow them to pass as WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep, merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only difference between this discussion and the discussions for the other decades prior to May 29 (when the others were closed and this was relisted) was the extra delete !vote by Ajf773. Was there a particular reason for only !voting here? I do agree with others above that it would be odd for this decade to be the only one not be allowed to stand alone. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostOfDanGurney: While I do, obviously, have issue (as I mentioned above) with the idea that one decade's article gets deleted while the rest did not, it doesn't matters why they voted on one and not the rest, that's entirely acceptable to do. We have no reason to question them on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: My aim with the comment was to try to determine if it was worth seeing if just renominating the whole bundle of decades as a batch (without the other articles that were included the first time) was a good option. I should have been more clear with that and I apologize for coming across as trying to call them out here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with NASCAR on television and radio: per the nom. I'm just not finding the sources covering the broadcasts from this decade as a group, and as such, this fails to meet the WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Merge as a WP:ATD, along with the rest of the articles from this 'series'. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 13 June 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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1970s

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid split? ...which is made of YouTube links. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 23 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1960s

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, TV schedules, those centrally about the season with the broadcasting being merely mentions and most of those being YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid split? ...which is made of YouTube links. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 23 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 1990s

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages, those centrally about the season and mostly YouTube posts; none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid split? ...which is made of Youube links. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 23 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2010s

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of announcments, centrally those about the seasons, WP:PRIMARY, mostly dead and redirected pages and YouTube posts, none of these helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid split? ...which is made of YouTube links. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:09, 23 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2000s

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of mostly dead and redirected pages, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio, alternatively merge to that target. Splitting individual decades keeps the parent article from becoming too cluttered and unreadable. See WP:SIZESPLIT and WP:NOMERGE. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid split? ...which is made of Youube links. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:08, 23 May 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.

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NASCAR on television in the 2020s

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent NASCAR fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists heavily of Twitter posts, WP:PRIMARY and YouTube posts, not helping this list to assert notability. An WP:ATD will be to merge to NASCAR on television and radio. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, deletion is not clean up. The races televised are very much list cruft, but the sourcing for the year-by-year is sufficient. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it was clean up, I questioned the reliability of sources per WP:RS. Not to forget Bornon tried to add new sources, they still do nothing for notability. Better make use of Fandom and put this list out of its misery. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Go to Fandom" is more or less saying you're trying to use AfD as cleanup, and the snobby tone used won't make you any friends. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all and I don't have anything against Fandom either. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a valid split from NASCAR on television and radio. Sourcing for the prose in the article could be better (a lot of primary refs), but secondary refs do EXIST. The amount of prose in here makes this copy-and-paste rationale by the nom look silly. LISTCRUFT and NOTDATABASE cannot apply here and the proposed ATD is countered by WP:NOMERGE points 1 and 2. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valid split? ...which is made of YouTube links. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per GhostOfDanGurney. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 23 May 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.

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 keep‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hanna's Into the Wild

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

Fails WP:GNG; no sources. Merge with Jack Hanna. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Animal, Biology, and United States of America. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bannon, Anne Louise (2022-02-24). "Parents' Guide to Jack Hanna's Into the Wild". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.
  The review notes: "While she show offers interesting information (for example, one episode talks about how to tell the difference between black and white rhinos), the overall feeling is that there's something missing. That Hanna is a strong cheerleader for animal conservation and educating kids about animals is without doubt -- but there's a difference between being a cheerleader and being an apologist. Hanna routinely dances around more substantive issues."
2. Willow, Molly (2007-11-03). "Jack Hanna and family go global for new series". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.
  The article notes: "With his latest TV foray, the syndicated series Jack Hanna's Into the Wild, Hanna is making use of his traveling companions. In addition to his daughter Kathaleen, who appeared often on her dad's previous series, Animal Adventures, wife Suzi and daughters Suzanne and Julie are part of the new show. ... Guy Nickerson, whose company Spectrum in Tampa, Fla., worked on Animal Adventures with Hanna for 10 years, helped him create the new series, which is shown in 85 percent of the country. ... The series is filmed in high-definition and consists of the Hanna family's travels to learn about animals. ... An early episode included a visit to Rwanda, and episodes scheduled to run in the spring were filmed at the Wilds conservation center in southeastern Ohio and at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium."
3. Morse, Hannah (2018-08-21). "Latest episode Jack Hanna show features Loggerhead Marinelife Center". The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.
  The article notes: "The latest episode of “Jack Hanna’s Into The Wild” features Loggerhead Marinelife Center. ... The episode, titled “Saving Sea Turtles,” takes viewers on a tour of the center’s work and shows Solana’s release. The Hannas also watch a sea turtle nesting on the beach in the episode, said Rachel Csaszar, who works in Hanna’s office at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium. ... The show is in its 11th season."
4. "'Jungle' Jack Hanna Brings 'Into the Wild' to Ithaca". The Ithaca Journal. 2016-03-01. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.
  The article notes: ""Jack Hanna's Into the Wild," debuted. This unscripted series shows Hanna and his family as they explore the corners of the globe and animals and cultures. "Jack Hanna's Into the Wild" is the recipient of three Emmy Awards, winning in the category of Outstanding Children's Series."
5. Pursell, Chris (2006-12-18). "Hanna Returns From the Wilds". Television Week. Vol. 25, no. 47. p. 3. ISSN 1544-0516. EBSCOhost 510693361.
  The article notes: " Longtime syndication staple Jack Hanna is partnering with Trifecta Media and Entertainment for a new original half-hour weekly series set to launch in fall 2007. The series, "Jack Hanna's Into the Wild," marks Mr. Hanna's first new project since the 1990s and will follow his adventures around the world in search of the ultimate animal experience. Unlike previous series featuring the animal expert, this series will include Mr. Hanna's family on the travels. Among the crew who will participate are Mr. Hanna's wife, Suzi, and daughters Kathaleen, Suzanne and Julie, as well as longtime crew members and confidantes Glenn Nickerson and Dan Devaney. ... Trifecta will offer 22 half-hour installments of "Into the Wild," available for broadcast during the 2007-08 television season on a full barter basis. The company will handle all advertising sales for the program through its New York office, headed by Trifecta partner Michael Daraio."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. Maas, Jennifer (2023-12-19). "Jack Hanna's 400-Episode 'Into the Wild' and 'Wild Countdown' Library Acquired by Hearst Media Production Group (Exclusive)". Variety. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.
    The article notes: "Legendary wildlife host Jack “Jungle Jack” Hanna’s TV franchise library, including 400 episodes of “Jack Hanna’s Into the Wild” and “Jack Hanna’s Wild Countdown” has been acquired by Hearst Media Production Group."
  2. Larsen Stoddard, Aimee (2010-03-11). "Jungle Jack Hanna". Salt Lake City Weekly. ProQuest 363111415. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.
    The article notes: "He is currently hosting the TV series Jack Hanna's Into the Wild, which received a 2008 Daytime Emmy for Outstanding Children's Series."
  3. Albiniak, Paige (2009-11-01). "Trifecta Jumping into First-Run Programming". Broadcasting & Cable. ProQuest 225320084. Archived from the original on 2024-05-14. Retrieved 2024-05-14.
    The article notes: "Mystery Hunters will air in Trifecta's one-hour E/I block along with Animal Atlas. The company had been distributing Jack Hanna's Into the Wild in that block, but chose to stop distribution of that show due to low ratings."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jack Hanna's Into the Wild to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's evidence, didn't review all of it but there appears to be enough for GNG. Will review my comment if something significantly changes. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article wasn't up to spec but the show is notable. Niafied (talk) 04:43, 21 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of MLS Cup broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS; one is a Twitter post, one is a now a dead link and the other is an announcment; neither doing anything to establish notability and the rest is unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Over 120 different sources have just been added, bumping the current total to about 123 references. If that doesn't establish the notability, then I really don't know what else there is that could do it. Also, Major League Soccer, is one of the big five North American professional sports leagues alongside the NFL, NBA, Major League Baseball, and NHL. It's also the official #1 professional soccer organization in North America, and has been since it launched in 1996. Broadcasting information about the MLS Cup is further detailed in the individual articles for each MLS Cup event. So it isn't like there is little remote interest about this particular subject overall. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This will definitely pass in 2009 but c'mon, this is 2024. Sourcing guidelines has changed since. First of all, Twitter does not count as a WP:RS, neither do YouTube. Bornon, Have you ever voted delete in any of my nominations? SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Big 5? LOL No such thing. Of course, there's the big 4. Back to the subject; these all consists of announcment posts, WP:PRIMARY, two are Twitter posts, most others are about the game and less the broadcasting. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:LISTN. I reviewed the sources and I can chalk it up to this: TV announcements (WP:NOTTVGUIDE), WP:PRIMARY from mlssoccer.com, and of course WP:ROUTINE announcements about the schedule/broadcasting team. None of which provide justifiability for this article's existence. Conyo14 (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Chris1834 Talk 15:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacedFarmer: First of, why do you insist on replying to virtually single counterargument that somebody makes when you make an AFD? That's if you ask me, bordering on WP:BLUDGEONING? Also, like I said, there's broadcasting info in the individual MLS Cup articles themselves, such as the very first one in 1996. They're sourced or as good as the sources could possibly or remotely be. Here's some further articles about the MLS Cup broadcasting coverage, after the fact. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, Major League Soccer actually is considered part of the "Big 5" among North American professional sports franchises. Los Angeles Football Club, according to this article, was in the year 2023, valued at over $900 million. That's more than the Pittsburgh Penguins, Seattle Kraken, and Calgary Flames of the NHL. BornonJune8 (talk) 7:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Information about the viewership averages for the MLS Cup dating back to 1996 has now been added to the bottom of the article. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Here's a collection of articles about the MLS Cup's television ratings and viewership: MLS Cup draws largest total audience in 25 years, Canada’s TSN drew almost as many MLS Cup viewers as the U.S. broadcast on ABC, despite Canada having 1/10th the people, MLS Cup on ABC down almost 50 percent from 2018 on Fox and close to 2017 on ESPN, with earlier timing likely a factor, Fox’s coverage of MLS Cup final sees highest viewership for final since 1997, MLS Cup 2017 on ESPN draws lower overnight from last year, 2015 MLS Cup Final avoids distinction of being least watched ever, Weekly sports ratings: NFL, NBA, Army-Navy, MLS Cup and more, Ratings: MLS Cup, Lakers and more. And here's an additional article that discusses Bob Ley preforming play-by-play for the 1997 MLS Cup telecast on ABC. BornonJune8 (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further information that includes details about radio coverage, television ratings (including local markets), and international television coverage (such as the networks and commentators) have now been added to hopefully provide some better context. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- As of now, there are over 200, almost 300 references in the article. BornonJune8 (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Argue how you like but I don't understand why is it necessary for have this list? Why not merge it to the one about the league instead? As it being the 'big 5', ask an American how popular it is there, they laugh at you. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this clearly passes WP:GNG, and the nomination statement is clearly flawed. NOTTVGUIDE specifically allows historically important television information, and this is looks at the history of broadcasting. The other WP:NOTs outlined in the deletion rationale - I've been at AfD enough to know that they're a grab bag of WP:IDONTLIKEITs - this isn't a database, the sources aren't routine, and now we're wasting time on this here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also since a couple people have used WP:ROUTINE - that clearly doesn't apply as even though not every source qualifies for GNG, there's plenty of national coverage of the broadcasters and game ratings, including from Canada's National Post. WP:NOTDATABASE is also clearly wrong - this article is mostly prose. SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:LISTN is not met as this grouping isn't discussed in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. This seems clearly true? There are many, many references and the broadcast every cup is compared to all of the previous cups, making a list a properly notable topic. SportingFlyer T·C 22:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but what WP:THREE would you say do this? Let'srun (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Keep per BornonJune8 and SportingFlyer. There's nearly 300 references and much well-sourced text describing the history of MLS Cup broadcasters; I don't think it could be merged anywhere. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
300 sources, I'd advise BornonJune8 of WP:REFBOMBING. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacedFarmer: The article "Professional sports leagues in the United States" in itself, lists Major League Soccer as one of the top five major professional sports leagues in North America alongside Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, and the National Hockey League. To put things into perspective, in the United States, the 2022 MLS Cup had more viewers than the 2020 Stanley Cup final. Here's a 2023 article from Forbes on Major League Soccer's growth. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:50, 178 May 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, according to this article on MLS' attendance, Major League Soccer in the year 2022 had a higher average attendance than the NBA and NHL in 2022–23. MLS that year had an average attendance of 21,033 whereas the NBA had an 18,077 average attendance and the NHL had an 17,101 average attendance in that same time frame. In 2023, MLS set a new season long attendance record. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty idiotic comparing leagues taking place to a stadium vs one in an arena. Like comparing apples to oranges. Still, doesn't make it any bigger considering the size of those stadiums.

I cannot give the figures now as NHL is in a playoff, so cost of tickets will be higher but the average ticket for an NHL game costs $94. according to [58]. A ticket to see DC United will cost $21 according to Ticketmaster. Again, this list is not about how big MLS is to Americans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the average seating capacity of a Major League Soccer stadium is said to be between 18,000 and 30,000. PayPal Park, which is home of the San Jose Earthquakes, is currently the smallest MLS stadium at about 18,000 seats. Meanwhile, the average NBA arena has a capacity of 18,790. And the average capacity of an NHL arena is around 16,000–20,000. This is not like comparing an NBA or NHL arena to an NFL stadium, which has an average seating capacity of 60,000–80,000. The current smallest NBA arena in terms of capacity is the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, which has a 16,600 maximum capacity BornonJune8 (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does this have to do with the broadcasting teams? Conyo14 (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling another editor's point "idiotic" is not appropriate (WP:UNCIVIL). Brindille1 (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MLS Cup Playoffs. I'm not a fan of listcruft, but I can see some value in preserving the history on this one, including all those sources. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm open to a redirect to MLS Cup Playoffs as a WP:ATD. I do think as presently structured that this fails WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per SportingFlyer. This is extensively referenced and shows clear WP:SIGCOV, while appearing to meet WP:LISTN. ...to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans – What kind of opinionated and completed irrelevant nomination rationale is that? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: BornonJune8 made a good list of secondary sources covering MLS Cup broadcasts. I understand that there are low quality sources among the nearly 281 sources cited in the article, but MLS Cup viewership very clearly meets WP:GNG. The fact that there are other non-reliable sources covering this topic is irrelevant- there are significant independent secondary sources covering this topic and that establishes notability. It is also worth pointing out that the nominator has made a large number of comments that MLS as a league is niche- these comments simply can't be considered in the deletion discussion, as they're litigating the notability of the league as a whole, rather than discussion of the actual topic. Brindille1 (talk) 16:09, 26 May 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.

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. While there is not a clear consensus, I think Alpha3031 and BusterD's arguments are more persuasive. If the draft creator would like to work on the article in Draft space and submit it to AFC, contact me or WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rusking Pimentel

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

As far as I can tell, there's pretty much zero coverage of this person outside of the routine announcements, and NPOL doesn't extend to everybody working in the office of the state level politicans in question. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Dominican Republic, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I looked into it and found the following new sources which are independent and have significant coverage: [59], [60], [61]. This a notable subject and fulfills the WP:NPOL as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddygypsy (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Also, {{page creator}} and all that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please include a signature with your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article meets WP:GNG as far as I can tell. If the sources are reliable and fully backed up being the host of a notable TV show possibly meets WP:ENT. The NPOL may not be for here. Why not redirect to the show? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't quibble on whether they had a significant role (eswiki article on the show is no help since it only goes up to 2008 and has even fewer references than ours), but ENT specifically says multiple, SafariScribe, and I don't think I've seen anything that claims they were part of any other notable production. I also don't see anything that could really be considered GNG or BASIC-level SIGCOV, anything beyond bare mentions seem to be routine coverage surrounding the announcement, excluded by SBST. No objection to redirect though, I just didn't want to BLAR since I anticipated an objection was not unlikely. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get a second opinion on the sources offered in this discussion and if a Redirect target article was identified. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG, ANYBIO, NPOL. I don't see a redirect target. This subject is a run of the mill political operative with no significant coverage which meets directly detailing RS. The sources presented above (subject graduates) don't assert any notability (lots of folks graduated). BusterD (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of graduates get cover stories. Caddygypsy (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point precisely. No significant coverage, no notability. BusterD (talk) 12:48, 7 June 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.

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 WNYX-LD. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNXY-LD

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

Fails WP:GNG; just two sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with WNYX-LD. WNYX seems to have some sources and common ownership that could be enough to not only justify keeping it from AFD, but the perfect article to merge into. --Danubeball (talk) 23:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 26 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic Station

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

I'm struggling to see how this YouTube web series meets the WP:N for NMUSIC or even GNG. While there may be coverage in RS like this, this, this, and this, but these all seem to ROTM coverage - most probably paid / PR-related articles without any by-lines, which isn't sufficient to meet WP:SIRS.

While this coverage could contribute to establishing GNG, it alone isn't enough. Anyone who wants to argue for keeping this page should provide at least three best examples of coverage from RS to help establish WP:N. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:01, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 19 May 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.

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. The Delete views present a stronger case, resulting in a rough consensus. Owen× ☎ 12:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Open broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As of sources per WP:RS: three of those are about announcment of deals, one is a listing of TV schedules, one just quotes the tourney in passing which has no relevance to this list. Checked WP:BEFORE which resulted in nothing. I would have no objections to a keep if the article was in the same quality of List of Wimbledon broadcasters.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Tennis, Lists, and Australia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - except this one has better sourcing than the deleted French Open article. It needs to be tidied, but just because it's not up to a good article like Wimbledon broadcasters doesn't mean we delete it. Wimbledon broadcasters shows these articles can be kept and in the discussion on the deleteion of the French article it was mentioned that Wimbledon and Australia are much better. What's next... the US Open Broadcasters article.? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not feel strongly about this page, but I do find the reasons for deletion to be garbage. This is not a TV guide, neither was the French Open page or any other of the tennis tournament broadcasters pages. This statement about the page "to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?" I find to be the most nonsense. This page is not bloated at all. Since when is something listed in an encyclopedia only because it is popular? The whole point about an encyclopedia (particularly an online one that is not limited in size by printing costs) is that it should contain obscure information (I am not sure a listing of which networks broadcast a major tennis event is that obscure anyway). I would never request any page on wikipedia be deleted, as this goes against what I believe wikipedia should be about. If editors feel pages are not sourced well that is a different issue. If I feel that is the case when I look at a page, I look to find sources (in this page's case many sources may be broadcasts of finals which list the commentators). The only problematic issue with this page (and other Grand Slam TV broadcasters history pages) is that TV broadcast contracts are merging into online streaming contracts (with various limitations to customers based on location) and keeping up with all the different streaming contracts may be problematic going forward. But the pages still have a value when looking back on the era when events were broadcast on TV (for the time being Wimbledon is still broadcast on conventional TV by the BBC, though maybe not for much longer). This change to streaming could easily be overcome by a simple statement "in recent years the event has been available on a variety of streaming services". The No TV guide wikipedia policy that the deletion proposer posted a link to says the following: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." That clearly shows a primary reason for deletion of this article and others like it is bogus.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 04:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Soft~~Weak Delete After some due research within the scope of the Australian Open, I have come to the conclusion that as a list, the topic fails WP:LISTN, but as a prose, it has more potential as its own article. If the closer determines that, then I would suggest that we consider moving this article to just be History of Australian Open broadcasts, remove the WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:OR, and keep the sources that actually commit notability to this topic. Conyo14 (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very little original research in this article. Finals commentators can be known by watching the matches. YouTube videos could be used as sources for this (including from official channels). It is of interest to some to know the finals commentators.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Watching the match then placing down what you saw is WP:OR. YouTube is considered WP:TERTIARY due to its unreliability. Conyo14 (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Linking to online videos can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission." More and more videos from long ago are being published on YouTube from official tennis sources, particularly the Australian Open (they are currently undertaking a project uploading a lot of their archive from 1975 onwards). A very good source of who is commentating on a match is the match itself provided by the tournament itself (just about as reliable as it can possibly be). And wikipedia policy seems to agree with that. The No original research policy states "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research."Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that information, and some due thought, the videos that the Open produce via YouTube or distributable under the rights of the Open to their respective broadcasting partners, are therefore WP:PRIMARY. So, basically, a source that demonstrates some significant coverage of who calls the game, commentates, reports, etc. would have to be done by a secondary source, like if a local tv station called out who was doing it. I am not saying it's a bad source, just that it wouldn't qualify for the main thing I am arguing for: WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a stand-alone list. Regarding primary sources, "a primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". Obviously the wikipedia policy has to be careful to ensure that, for example, an article written about a political party does not solely use as its source the political party's official website. Not relevant to a broadcast of the Australian Open, where the commentators are mentioned (incidentally there are many other videos of the same matches not posted by the official YouTube channel of the tournament which have the same commentary). What this whole thing about is one editor copying and pasting deletion requests and posting them on many pages based on bogus reasons, referencing wikipedia policy articles that he clearly hasn't read. This editor does not seem to be contributing much to wikipedia (certainly not anything to this article), and is only intent on destroying and removing perfectly valid material. And you Conyo14, seem to be acting as a tag team with this editor. In common with the original poster, you seem to show no interest in the subject matter (even admitting so in your comments here) yet despite this seem intent on giving your views on whether this article should be removed, quoting wikipedia policy articles you clearly have not read, then when your ignorance is shown up, quoting other articles. There has already been one ANI trying to ban the user posting this deletion request and there may be more if this user continues to behave in this way. Why don't both users consider spending their time more productively, creating rather than destroying. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I don't appreciate your tone here, perhaps you need to stop replying here as your accusations of a tag team are mislead as well as my interpretations of a policy that are not unfounded. You're welcome to continue your usage of your interpretation of the policy as well as mine, because as far as that goes, it won't matter until the relister does their judgment. Conyo14 (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me that first used the term "tag team", it was another editor that I do not know on the ANI, but it seems a pretty accurate description to me. I read the following text that you posted on the deletion proposer's user page, regarding the mass posting of deletion requests. "It's getting exhausting pressing copy and paste on these haha. Good work though on these. I definitely recommend slowing down a bit though. I'm not sure by how much, but one prior editor had a run going and then was formally warned to slow down in WP:ANI. You may create a user space here for the lists you wish to delete, that way you don't lose track of them". Those comments speak for themselves. I have quoted wikipedia policy documents that you and the deletion proposer have quoted throughout, showing how ridiculous your interpretations of them are (not surprising really, considering a lot of the text in the posts proposing deletion had very similar text on deletion requests for many pages which vary immensely). I have nothing personal against you, Conyo14, but your interventions here and on other removal pages do you no credit. I have not commented on the vast majority of the hundreds of pages which the user has requested for deletion, because they are on sports that I have no interest in, and I have a rule that I never edit or comment on subjects that do not interest me. But I agree there is little to be gained by a protracted argument. The wikipedia policies speak for themselves, as does the edit history of the editor proposing the deletion.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
k Conyo14 (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conyo14, this discussion can't be closed as a "Soft Delete" as there are editors arguing for "Keeping" this article. Therefore, deletion is not uncontroversial and Soft Deletion is not appropriate. Soft Deletions are similar to Proposed Deletions and so if Deletion is contested, then SD can't be a closure result. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:LISTN due to a lack of references from secondary sources discussing the broadcasters as a set. Let'srun (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Let'srun, I am struggling to see where the notability here comes from to meet the LISTN threshold. While a secondary consideration as AfD is not cleanup, there's far too much original research here for my liking too — representative in my opinion of the lack of secondary sources covering this topic, hence the LISTN concerns. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a good knowledge of the level of accuracy of this article (the accuracy level is high). I would not defend an article that was not accurate. There are numerous sources already, primary and secondary, but I have added more. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal knowledge of the content included in this article is of minimal relevance, per WP:OR. But that is not the primary reason I believe this should be deleted. It is the failure of meeting the LISTN threshold through independent, reliable secondary sources that mean this should be deleted. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Tennihistory1877. The article has potential and room to be improved, and I do not see deletion as justified, considering that the article contains verifiable and sourced information. Clone commando sev (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merely containing "verifiable and sourced information" is not the threshold for keeping a list; WP:LISTN is. Daniel (talk) 11:10, 5 June 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.

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 ESPN College Basketball#Personalities. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN College Basketball personalities

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, there is none. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and Basketball. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and Merge to ESPN College Basketball#Personalities with only the most notable announcers on that list. The article on its own is good for the fandom, it is otherwise WP:LISTCRUFT. Conyo14 (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:24, 19 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of CBS Sports college basketball commentators

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, 506sports is a forum and collegehoopsnet is merely an announcment of a list of commentators, the other is a blogspot post; neither doing anything to establish notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Basketball, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:04, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and Merge to College Basketball on CBS Sports#Commentators with only the most notable announcers on that list. This list does not meet WP:LISTN for this wiki, but for the fandom wiki, it's fine. Conyo14 (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources such as newspaper articles dating as far back as the early 1980s can easily be found and later added over a relatively short matter of time with the aid of Google News Archives as well as places like Awful Announcing for more "current" or up to date sources. There's also presumably, official press releases from CBS Sports itself. I would estimate, that sources can be filled up in roughly a day and a half. Also, who would fall under the criteria of being "the most notable announcers" among this particular list? Are we only referring to current announcers for CBS as of 2024, are we referring to announcers who only worked the March Madness tournament? BornonJune8 (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: There are secondary sources discussing these announcers as a group particularly for March Madness, as seen with [[62]], [[63]], [[64]], [[65] and [[66]] being found relatively quickly. I wouldn't oppose possibly reducing this to just the March Madness crews but sourcing does appear to show that the WP:LISTN is met. Again, this isn't a broadcasters schedule so I'm not sure how this is a WP:NOTTVGUIDE and I'm unsure which part of NOTDATABASE the nom thinks this violates. Let'srun (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:22, 27 May 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.

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 College Basketball on ABC#Commentators. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of College Basketball on ABC personalities

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, 506sports is a forum and the ESPN now redirects to the main page, neither doing anything to establish notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and Basketball. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to College Basketball on ABC: Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN since as the nom notes as the individuals listed here are not covered as a group in secondary sources. A WP:BEFORE check didn't come up with any sources to improve the article. Edit: Changing my vote to merge as a WP:ATD.Let'srun (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources are being added to this particular article at this very moment to further strengthen its notability. This is a work in progress of course, but at the very least, take into consideration, merging the this article with the main College Basketball on ABC article as a secondary option instead of out and out junking it. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to College Basketball on ABC#Personalities as an WP:ATD. This article is WP:LISTCRUFT with mainly WP:ROUTINE sourcing or WP:BLOG posts, fit for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this particular AFD was put into place, over 20 sources have been added. Of course, there could and should be more, but naturally, 20 is a huge leap and jump from the five that was initially there. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:49, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the addition of some reliable sourcing though I still feel as a list, it is not covered under WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. I'd advise BornonJune8 of WP:REFBOMBING. Let'srun (talk) 23:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A few things here: I want to quickly address some of the arguments presented by the nominator. WP:NOTTVGUIDE is a policy that relates to current and upcoming events/programming, so I wouldn't really consider this to be applicable here as it is a combination of past and present television personalities. From a spot check of individuals on the list, standalone articles about the subjects included on this list are notable and meet WP:NBIO. Of course, this does not inherently make the list itself notable, especially one that is standalone. Lists (not necessarily standalone) of this type have held water before (quick examples would include NBC evening news anchors and ABC evening news anchors) with the same rationale that we tend retain lists of notable persons that have a notable trait in common. This goes beyond being simply an indiscriminate database, but is a significant compilation of an important aspect of the underlying subject, in this case, the television program College Basketball on ABC. As a result, deletion altogether would be a disservice the extent of knowledge one can gain regarding the television program. Regardless of the numerous sources added since time of nomination, I concur with the nominator that this article fails to meet the criteria of WP:NLIST for a standalone list. To retain the inline citations, per WP:AOAL, combined with the above, merging this list as suggested by Conyo14 (talk · contribs) seems be the best course of action. Bgv. (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, Delete or Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Changed my vote to merge per the previous comment. Let'srun (talk) 19:18, 27 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working Women (TV series)

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

This TV drama fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. ROTM coverage like this and this and even INTERVIEWS like is not enough to meet GNG.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on some ROTM or paid/PR coverage —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With quite a few WP:RS cited in the article. Also, the sources you mentioned in the nomination's rationale do help in meeting WP:GNG. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Cocobb8, I should have made it clear that the majority of sources currently used in the article are not even RS, so they shouldn't even be considered here. And the ones I provided in my nomination aiove are not enough to meet GNG, which requires significant coverage. not merely ROTM coverage or interviews like I mentioned above. A Google search also doesn't yield anything solid in RS that could be considered significant coverage. Hope this clarifies. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Saqib: Sources like this and this do help in potentially establishing WP:GNG, but I'll leave it to other editors to see what they think as well. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of them is reliable enough to establish WP:GNG. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review/analysis would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I too do believe the Youlin review and the Daily Pakistan one cannot be dismissed. They're signed and the periodicals cannot be considered unreliable. The piece in Feminism in India has one paragraph: Working Women showcases the realities of women in the modern society of the 21st century. The story overcomes biases and embraces the range of experiences because of the characters’ intersectionality, which enables it to touch on a number of facets of womanhood. Every woman is a representation of a certain aspect of the difficulties women encounter while pursuing a successful career and personal life. The drama encourages viewers to consider the expectations society places on women as it progresses. It also establishes a new benchmark for poignant and significant storytelling. The 2 paragraphs in Dawn, mentioned by Saqib, are not "routine" and I find the opening statement rather significant: While most commercial shows offer us a carefully sanitised version of life, scripts from writer Bee Gul show us a world with all the rough edges and inconsistencies intact. Lucy aka Nusrat (Maria Wasti) is a wealthy real estate agent for urban elites. The first episode shows her pondering her fate as a lonely, single woman heading towards middle age, while her friends are comfortably married with children. By episode three, she has a disparate collection of women to keep her company as paying guests. The credit for making this set-up believable goes to director Yasra Rizvi and the actresses playing each paying guest character: Srha Asghar plays Amber, a bitter, poor little rich girl who has lost her home because of a boyfriend; Faiza Gilani plays Hashmat, a woman escaping sexual harassment; Ilsa Hareem is a runaway teenage bride; and there are more. And the rest of the sources include mostly interviews but allow verification of the cast/date, production history and basic facts. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:14, 21 May 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.

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN College Football broadcast teams

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS, fourteen of those are wiki pages, and the rest, if not unsourced, is WP:PRIMARY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and American football. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep with sourcing from [67], [68] and [69]. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Sources above are a mix of WP:ROUTINE or not applicable to the article. They are good to add to the main article. Conyo14 (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the reasons given by the original nominator and other delete voter above. Gottagotospace (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also agree with the nominators reasoning. Hkkingg (talk) 23:50, 25 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

101 Talaqain

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

This TV show fails to meet WP:NTV as I couldn't find sig/ in-depth coverage. Simply being written by a freelancer is not enough to establish WP:GNG, nor is ROTM coverage like this and this.

Not every TV drama aired on TV channels inherently get a WP page. In Pakistan, we only have TV dramas, nothing else, so we don't need an article on each one of them based solely on ROTM or paid/PR coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage exists, including signed reviews, one being currently on the page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, I should have made it clear that the majority of sources currently used in the article are not even RS, so they shouldn't even be considered here.Which signed reviews are you referring to? Please provide a link here. Also, may I ask you to provide here some coverage which you think should be sig/in-depth. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  TNS you mentioned yourself, signed Sadia Sherbaz; the review in Youlin Magazine, signed Hurmat Majid; this, signed Zainab Mossadiq; this signed Sophia Qureshi; for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Mushy Yank, So, if a piece is signed, does that make it reliable enough to establish GNG? I don't think so, because TNS like other Pakistani RS do accept guest contibutions. And Sadia Sherbaz have only written one article for TNS, as a guest contributor. This piece can be used for WP:V, but not for establishing GNG. Meanwhile, Galaxylollywood and TheBrownIdentity aren't even slightly RS. I've mentioned this several times on various forums. They're just internet business websites, with nothing to do with journalism. They even shouldn't be used for WP:V, let alone to establish GNG about something. We definitely need a guide that can help us determine which Pakistani sources can be considered RS and which cannot. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You're welcome. You do realise that you seem to be commenting each and every !vote that does not go your way and subsequent additions to the said !votes in the numerous Afd you initiated? It may be in a good spirit and I don't mind personally, but I'm just saying this to apologise in advance: I probably won't reply anymore, sorry. Also, I mentioned these reviews are signed because when I present reviews that are not signed, yourself and certain users discard them (by saying roughly ""not bylined" therefore not RS under NEWSORGINDIA", and so on). But apparently signed reviews are not good enough either and some have nothing to do with journalism (!). So when you say We definitely need a guide that can help us determine which Pakistani sources can be considered RS and which cannot., sure, maybe, but apparently, you have determined that by yourself and my input, added at your request, was not necessary. I therefore leave it at that and will spend no more time on this, again, sorry. Good luck. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Mushy Yank, Yeah, you're probably right. I might have gone a bit overboard with responding to every single objection to my AfD nomination. But as the one putting forward the AfD, it's on me to address any concerns people have, Right? But like when one mention those non-RS sources for establishing GNG, it's my responsibility to point out that they're not legit RS. Sometimes those sites seem solid at first glance, but with a closer look, they're more like glorified PR machines than actual journalism outlets. So, I guess what I'm saying is, your input is definitely important. I'm not too proud to admit when I'm wrong either – if you check out my AfD stats, you'll see I've withdrawn a bunch of nominations when I realized I goofed. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try with relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Although sources appear to be from local and Pakistani sites, we cannot just assume they are unreliable. The series seems to have enough coverage in its own country to be notable. In particular, here are some of the better coverage 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Hkkingg (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hkkingg, Galaxy Lollywood, The Brown Identity and Something Haute are either content farms or WP:UGC sites. Having said that, these websites may not meet our standards for WP:V, let alone establishing GNG. Source # 3 and 4 have the same URLs. While Dawn Images is considered a RS but this particular coverage seems to be no more than a PR announcing the launch of the show. I believe for establishing GNG requires a high level of coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the sources again and can confirm that they are not user-generated content. I'm not sure what you mean by "content farm," but these sites appear to offer legitimate reviews of the TV Series. It's important not to dismiss sites simply because they are Pakistani or not based in the US; such an assumption doesn't automatically equate to low quality. You'll need to provide a stronger rationale and clearer explanation for why these sites are unacceptable. I understand you're trying to defend your nomination, but it seems like you might be stretching for reasons to avoid appearing as though you've made a poor nomination.

Also here are some additional sources that I have just found:

https://socialdiary.pk/zahid-ahmed-acing-dark-comedy-in-101-talaqain/

https://fuchsiamagazine.com/zahid-ahmed-takes-on-marriage-woes-in-upcoming-drama-comedy-101-talaqain/

https://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/710739-Zahid-Ahmed-hitting-the-screens-as-lead-in-101-Talaqain

https://www.independenturdu.com/node/152791

https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1199629 Hkkingg (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you're new to WP, I recommend familiarizing yourself with our policy on WP:RS. Many of the websites you mentioned are WP:UGC platforms that accept guest posts and paid placements, therefore, they do not meet the standards for establishing WP:GNG. Social Diary, Galaxy Lollywood, The Brown Identity and Something Haute are WP:GUNREL. While coverage in Dawn News and Dunya News coverage is not sig/in-depth and also without by-line which suggest they are paid placements and falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The coverage in Independent Urdu is based on an interview therefore is WP:PRIMARY. The issue isn't about the origin of these websites but rather the credibility of the sources. There are plenty of Pakistani sources acceptable for WP usage, but the ones you mentioned are not among them. Further, I'll ping @S0091: so they can review these sources and offer their opinion, too. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib I cannot offer my opinion per WP:CANVASS. S0091 (talk) 14:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S0091, Well I'm not asking for your vote, just your opinion on the quality of the sources provided by @Hkkingg, which is permitted, I guess. Given your expertise, you're better equipped to assess the sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CANVASS The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. You are not pinging a range of editors with various opinions, only me. As you know, I have participated in a few similar AfDs, have expressed an opinion on many of these sources and thus far have !voted delete in all of them. It may not have been you intent to canvass but you are. S0091 (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just one thing. Hkkingg has been editing WP for over a year. He is not "new to WP" at all. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, Hkkingg only has 323 edits so I assumed they might be new here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You assumed so, but he is not. And 323 edits is not "new", I'd say, especially when you have participated in a number of AfDs, as is the case. Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib I do not consider myself a new editor, as I have been making edits for over a year and have participated in many AFDs. You have provided no details or evidence to support the claim that the sources I suggested are paid blogs or otherwise unreliable. Your blanket statement that they are all low quality seems unjust. Surely in comparison to American publications, they probably are of lower quality, but can't assume unreliable or paid articles without a deep analysis of the reasons, which you have failed to provide. However, the extensive coverage this series has received in its own country attests to its notability. Claiming that every single source is unreliable or paid for is unreasonable. Hkkingg (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hkkingg, Well there was a quick chat over at WP:RSN about Fuchsia Magazine, where it was labeled an unreliable source. Social Diary, on the other hand, seems to lack a proper editorial team besides one editor, yet you view it as reliable. They even label themselves as a "lifestyle magazine." If you're inclined to overlook this as well the community consensus WP:NEWSORGINDIA, it's up to you. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, the WP page for the channel Green Entertainment that aired this show has been deleted due to 1. UPEs, 2. socking and 3. insufficient WP:N. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:42, 29 May 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.

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 keep‎. BusterD (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malhun Hatun (fictional character)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Having hard time to find any valuable source per WP:BEFORE + character has no reception at all. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:48, 11 May 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. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the film. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I searched Malhun Hatun without "fictional character" and went to Google News and found tons of sources about her. Perhaps you should tag it for notability for a week or two weeks, then nominate it for deletion or maybe an assessment, although that's just my opinion. Kazama16 (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 01:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you find sources that can be used to establish notability, please identify them in this discussion. General comments that sources exist aren't taken seriously.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep given the awards, I'm willing to believe there are reliable sources. They might not be in English. This discussion can always be revisited again later, depending on what further searches reveal. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. Sources exist even if the nominator could not read them and is not able to evaluate them. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give us 2 examples of the best-ish WP:N sources for this subject you've seen? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wouldn't typically a third but there's some ongoing conversation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some RIS covering the fictional character, not the historical person. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Mccapra (talk) 18:31, 2 June 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.

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 GMA Network original programming#Former original programming. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GMA Saturday/Sunday Report

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009. No good hits on GNews, GSearch and GNews Archives. Most hits are old TV guide lists. Suggest redirecting to List_of_GMA_Network_original_programming#Former_original_programming as WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 08:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 08:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the last Afd

The suggested reference in the old AfD is from GMA's news network.
The suggested essay WP:TVSHOW that is used to argue for keep is well, an essay. It's better to follow WP:GNG and cite a reliable sources to support its notability.
It was part of a mass AfD which probably made it harder for editors then to scrutinize each article's merit during that particular period. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, also there is also lack of coverage by GMA programming (old shows) and reliable source is original research. This article should be delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:OR and WP:RS. Icarus58 (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I decided to delete no redirect immediately to avoid multiple redirects for old programs since it is not advisable. Icarus58 (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of GMA Network original programming#Former original programming per nomination. -Ian Lopez @ 04:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:23, 19 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Invitation Tournament postseason broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is a blogpost, one is a dead link, all the other four is WP:PRIMARY and the rest of this list are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NLIST is not met as this grouping isn't discussed in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:54, 18 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Division I FBS broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS that is not a dead link; tem of those are WP:PRIMARY to teams, two of those are 404 and two are staff roster pages; two of those are about announcers and one leads to a home page. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this nor have anything to with this list. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment radio is not TV.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 25 May 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.

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!} 20:51, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sugar Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Of the sources per WP:RS; one is about an announcer, each one of the others is about the Bowl games, with this being given a passing mention. None of these are doing anything at all to help assert notability of lists like this. All the others are unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with sourcing from [70] and [71].
Delete: the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Sources above are merely routine mentions or ratings numbers. Conyo14 (talk) 04:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:52, 18 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ville Seivo

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

WP:BEFORE yields nothing of use. Only film databases and user generated content. Printed coverage in foreign language is unlikely, as the subject seems to have played minor roles in not many major works. However, if they exist, one may list so. X (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Finland. X (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 18 May 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.

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 14:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hermie and Friends

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

Granted that I don't know what reference sources would discuss this Christian animated children's show but I didn't find anything in my online search that wasn't either user-generated content, product-focused (promotion) or sites that allowed users to view episodes. I found no secondary sources or SIGCOV. One site called it an "award-winning" show but I never could locate what that award was. Given the detail of content about the characters, I think this article mainly serves as a nostalgia page for IP editors to write about a series they might have watched when they were younger. Dare I say it? I don't think it is notable or encyclopedic. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Christianity. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So far I've found one review in the Wichita Falls Times Record News: "DVD hangs on wing, prayer and a caterpillar", which has eight brief paragraphs. I'll see if I can find anything else. Toughpigs (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Toughpigs, I'm impressed by your diligence. We have so many articles on marginal children's television series. I guess this one did have some coverage, at least in Wichita. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this UT Daily Beacon review is independent, extensive, and as RS as any college student publication would be. In combination with the above, that would be a notability pass. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of note but not contributing to notability, Tim Conway's obituaries do seem to mention this series (he voiced the main character) among his other clearly more well-known roles. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2024 (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, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: The sources presented above might show this is notable enough. If a redirect target can be found, not opposed to the idea. Needs a bit of trimming.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Besides the reviews listed above, there is also this and this from The Dove Foundation and this from the School Library Journal. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 07:48, 29 May 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.

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. Owen× ☎ 10:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danial Afzal Khan

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

The subject does not meet WP:NACTOR. No evidence indicating significant roles in notable films, TV dramas, etc. Merely being in a film or TV drama does not make one Inherently notable. A quick Google search doesn't yield anything either which can meet WP:GNG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although it easily passes notability criteria, but i am not bother whether if its delete or keep. The nominator is harassing me by nominating articles created by me. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many articles that you created have they nominated for deletion? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone, They nominated Abdullah Seja, added notability tag to Qudsia Ali, Agha Mustafa Hassan & Abu Aleeha [72], the tag was removed by another senior editor [73] but again it was added by nominator without giving any reason [74]. These articles are easily meeting wikipidea criteria but i will not remove these tags as i respect senior editors perspective. Libraa2019 (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libraa2019, And I've just nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qudsia Ali and I've provided my reasoning there. Regarding why I tagged Abu Aleeha, see Talk:Abu Aleeha. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are unable to understand any rationale and clearly not ready to listen others despite of them proving their points. Any ways, i dont have much time to spend as i am engaged in personal life. Good luck with your mission. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - appears to be WP:NACTOR with [75] and [76]. Having worked in films and critically acclaimed series as well. Google search also yields potential material to improve his article with. Should be tagged for "Additional Citations".Sameeerrr (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Please don't use interview-based coverage to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have added few, merely not based on interviews. There are more sources available, I'd suggest you to research about a subject prior to initiating an WP:AfD on. I've noticed your certain WP:AfD should have been tagged for improvement as there's much enough coverage available to establish WP:GNG about them. For instance, my take on WP:AfD of Tumhare Husn Ke Naam, Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri (TV series) etc. Sameeerrr (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think CNMall41 (talk · contribs) mentioned elsewhere that simply adding references to the article won't help. You need to provide THREE of the best sources here that aren't ROTM coverage or interview-based to help establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your approach of providing "THREE" best references. If we were supposed to provide the only three best references, then I wonder Wikipedia would have limited it WP:References section "To add Three Best sources" only. Sameeerrr (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep multiple notable roles through which passes WP:NACTOR and significant coverage as one can confirm at [77] therefore passes WP:GNG. Libraa2019 (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence indicating major roles. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already provided. You are not ready to check any. Libraa2019 (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Providing significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as an evidences.
Daily Times [78]

The News International [79]

The Nation [80]

DAWN [81]

The Express Tribune [82]

Daily Times [83]

The News International [84]

Daily Jang [85]

Eastern Eye [86]

Daily Pakistan [87]

Daily Jang [88]

Daily Times [89]

The Friday Times [90]

Daily Times [91]

Daily Times [92] Libraa2019 (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please show proof that the subject had major roles. None of the sources you've provided confirm this. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have visited all these sources in 3 minutes?? As you replied in less than 5 minutes, it clearly says you are not ready to check any source. If i would present some wiki articles where he played notable roles then you will take them to AFD and game the system, the same you did with Abdullah Seja. Libraa2019 (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For other editors and record, All the attached sources are claiming he has played significant roles in multiple television serials and he also played a lead role in feature film Aksbandh, [93] Libraa2019 (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Libraa2019, No. I haven't been able to verify your claims that the subject had major roles in TV dramas, except for a 90-minute short film Aksbandh, which is not sufficient to meet WP:NACTOR. Fyi, simply doing some supporting roles in TV dramas isn't enough to qualify under NACTOR. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:BASIC, if an actor has sufficient coverage in reliable sources then he/she is notable. He played major role in Kab Mere Kehlaoge, Mohlat etc. And btw that comment was for other editors not you. Sources likeThe Express Tribune, DAWN, The News International did'nt satisfy you because article is my creation. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please clarify whether you want to assess WP:N based on NACTOR or GNG. If GNG, please provide THREE best sources. And thanks for informing me about Kab Mere Kehlaoge; it doesn't appear to be a notable drama. I've AfD'd it. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are not an admin to whom i will respond and satisfy every time. Many editors have told you that i am presenting authentic sources but you denied [94] [95] I have provided more than 10 reliable sources for others and if any senior editor will demand, i will provide them. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Libraa2019, You're WP:CHERRYPICKING a few comments. I'll take it as you not having THREE strong coverage to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Is it also WP:CHERRYPICKING [96] [97] ?Libraa2019 (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in notable productions.... -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looking through the first few sources presented, The Nation is a Q&A interview so primary, The Express Tribune is casting announcement with a mention and Dawn is mention. This Daily Times is a casting announcement for Mohabbat Dagh ki Soorat which is not listed in the filmography and states it is an "appearance" so not a significant role and does not appear to be notable show (no article). The two The News International articles are interviews but they at least have some background information. While some roles they mention are not significant/noble, they both mention his performance as Nomi in Raaz-e-Ulfat so I think that role meets the significant/notable bar but multiple are required to meet WP:NACTOR. As I go through the other shows listed in the filmography I am finding most do not meet GNG, at least based on the sources currently provided so while some of the roles might be significant I cannot make the stretch they are notable productions. Draftifying might be an option until the notability of the other shows can be determined. S0091 (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- You endorse most of the AFD's initiated by Saqib (at which i am no one to object) but here you ignored WP:BASIC, plenty of excellent sources covering him. I have presented more than enough sources. Subject has started career around 8 years ago and i dont think so he deserves draftification right now as major publications like The Express Tribune, Daily Times, The News International are covering him. And secondly he has a lead role in feature film Aksbandh [98].
- And one more thing i want you to notice, Saqib mentioned at Imaan Mazari's AFD that Coverage doesn't always have to be in-depth [99] (that article was his creation) but contineously asking me to provide in-depth coverage. Still i presented multiple reliable sources with in-depth coverage. Libraa2019 (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Libraa2019 I am doing my own independent analysis so focusing on Saqib is not helpful. I addressed several sources directly and explained why they are not useful for notability. The two The News International sources were the best of the few I looked at. Both are interviews so are still weak sources with one them being an interview about his fitness routine and the other about his likes and dislikes, not about his career, though as I stated they do provided some background. One was published in 2020 and one in 2021 well after Aksbandh. Only one makes mention of film but all it says is that it did not do well at the box office. The one published is 2021 describes him as a "promising young actor", meaning he was still early in his career a couple years ago and eight years is not that long, especially in the entertainment industry.
  
  There is reason editors ask for WP:THREE; it's not just Saqib as you seem to think. While it is an essay it is one often cited in AfDs and by reviewers trying to assess drafts and new articles. Lots of sources does not mean a topic meets the notability criteria, including BASIC. If your claim is Khan meets BASIC then you need to present the specific sources that demonstrate he meets the criteria. I think it is unreasonable to expect editors to go through a list of fifteen sources, especially with no guidance on how any of them meet GNG or BASIC. Per WP:THREE I'm not willing to slog through dozens of sources to evaluate them. I am, however, willing to look at a few sources in detail if somebody else (i.e. you) does the footwork to figure out which ones are the best. I have already looked a seven or so sources but I am willing to look at a three more you believe are the best ones. S0091 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, as far as WP:THREE, please check history of Saqib, he firstly nominated all of the articles created by me in personal disagreements or what i am unable to understand, and he has never satisfied with any provided source and called every reliable source as unreliable and every notable show/project/role as non notable [100]. Do you think he will be satisfied if i have provided three solid sources. He is contineously opposing me but has a different criteria for that particular AFD [101]. Libraa2019 (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you are still choosing to focus on Saqib so let me state it more directly. Forget about Saqib. Saqib can nominate all the articles he wants but it is the community together that will determine WP:consensus so you need to convince all the others, which includes me. The best way to do that is to make a convincing argument with three to six good sources. Three is usually sufficient if they meet GNG even if one leans a little weak (sometimes two really strong sources are enough); five or six is usually enough for BASIC (could be less depending) but they need to have non-trivial coverage, along with being reliable, independent and secondary. S0091 (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presented independent and secondary sources, none of them were primary and unable to understand why is requirements of wikipidea are too much tough when it comes to me but totally opposite when experienced editors like Saqib create page of a random person who has coverage only for being arrested.

You can check the sources mentioned below which are covering him. And he himself admitted that he was nominating articles without proper knowledge [102].

Daily Times [103]

The News International [104]

The Nation [105]

DAWN [106]

The Express Tribune [107]

Daily Times [108]

Libraa2019 (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Libraa2019 I have already looked at all of those thus my statement I am willing to look at a three more. Please refer my comments in my delete !vote for my assessment. If those are the best ones, then they do not meet GNG nor BASIC. The two The News Internationals (though you only list one) I can see counting toward BASIC but they are not enough. And yet again you are focusing on Saqib by bringing up some other AfD which has absolutely no bearing on this one. I tried to help you focus on what matters but it's falling on deaf ears so I am done. Too much of my time wasted. S0091 (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please check these sources, are they able to meet GNG?

The News International [109]

Daily Jang [110]

Eastern Eye [111]

Daily Pakistan [112]

Daily Jang [113]

Daily Times [114]

The Friday Times [115]

Libraa2019 (talk) 19:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Fails WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikibear47 WP:ATA, also please specify how he fails GNG, multiple reliable sources are provided for evaluation. Libraa2019 (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and S0091, the sources presented by the individual editor refuting deletion do not qualify for the GNG threshold. I also find the bludgeoning in this AfD to be rather disruptive. Daniel (talk) 00:14, 27 May 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.

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. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KZTC-LD

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run-of-the-mill local TV station, notable only on a local level. TH1980 (talk) 01:16, 26 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSDY-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 10:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is another run-of-the-mill local TV station, also notable only on a local level. TH1980 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 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.

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 keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Ahmed Malhi

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

This actor-cum-model does not meets WP:ACTOR as I am unable verify their "major roles" in TV shows as require by WP:ACTOR - nor does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He is a well known actor. His roles in dramas has received coverage. His education and how he started his career is mentioned.[116][117][118](BeauSuzanne (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- BeauSuzanne, Your comments sound like WP:ATA. These coverages can be used for WP:V, but they're not enough to establish WP:GNG. Can you provide WP:THREE best coverage that you believe is sufficient to meet GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about Wp:V. I am saying that three souces meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG plus his dramas are also written in it.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 19:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- BeauSuzanne, As the creator of this BLP, you were supposed to provide three best coverage in order to meet GNG. Unfortunately, you haven't done that. The coverage is mostly interviews, which aren't independent of the subject. Such coverage cannot be used to establish GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: some of his roles (in the main cast) of notable productions appear to have him meet WP:NACTOR, which is the applicable guideline. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:49, 26 May 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.

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. Consensus is the subject fails WP:NACTOR and it is also noted there is insufficient significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 03:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amna Malik

AfDs for this article:

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

On the fact of it, she appeared in multiple TV shows but she fails to have 'significant role' in them therefore do no meet WP:ACTOR . BTW, this was deleted back in 2020. The creator BeauSuzanne (talk · contribs) wasn't only able to recreate it but they also did their best to conceal the previous deletion discussion, which speaks volumes about their dubious editing nature. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is a notable actress. She hasn't done main roles but she has done supporting roles in dramas and her recent work in Mayi was noted[119]. In these she mentioned how she switched from teacher to host and then acting.[120] Her peronal life.[121](BeauSuzanne (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- BeauSuzanne, Supporting roles are not enough to meet WP:NACTOR and the coverages you provided can be used for WP:V, but they're not enough to establish WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - It meets WP:Nactor some sources are written this way from interviews before that I did my search on the sources it's reliable from ARY News, Images Dawn and BOL News it's both in English and Urdu.(BeauSuzanne (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
    - BeauSuzanne, You've to see WP:ATA. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete it with fire. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speedy deletion is not appropriate and you haven't even specified an appropriate criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looking at her last few roles in shows with articles, none are significant (not starring or lead support) so she does not meet WP:NACTOR. Sources are interviews, do not mention her and many are not reliable such as The Brown Identity, Something Haute, FUCHSIA Magazine, Masala.com, Dispatch News Desk, etc. S0091 (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find convincing BeauSuzanne's explanation; some of her roles do seem significant enough and she seems to meet WP:NACTOR indeed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sure, her recent work was "noted" in source 20, but it's a series of photos with maybe 10 lines of text. The rest aren't in RS... Most I can find are interviews or the type of celebrity gossip articles that don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per my check, the article fails to meet WP:GNG as there is no in-depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. The sources are short and passing mentions. Additionally, it fails to meet WP:NACTOR as the subject was not a lead or significant character in any notable series, film, or drama. GrabUp - Talk 15:46, 30 May 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KVHC-LD

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And doesn't seem to be accurate since its ownership with Bridge Media Networks since it's still an affiliate of Paranormal TV and not NewsNet according to RabbitEars. OWaunTon (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We are already up to a second nomination here because the first nomination was malformed — specifially with regard to the AfD tag on the article. It would probably be best for one of the nominations — probably the barely-linked first one — to be itself deleted via G6 before any other action is taken with the article. (I don't yet have any opinion or further comment, in part because of this.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KVHC-LD is now closed and this one can run.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 23 May 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.

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!} 05:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cotton Bowl Classic broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's an important college football bowl game, with sourcing from [122], [123], [124]. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:LISTN is not met due to a lack of RS. Let'srun (talk) 04:27, 23 May 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.

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. ✗plicit 03:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sun Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it has a storied history on CBS, see [125], [126], [127]. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN due to a lack of sources from RS. Let'srun (talk) 16:09, 22 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Strong arguments on both sides, with no rough consensus. Owen× ☎ 13:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Orange Bowl broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. Also, mostly unsourced per WP:RS. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, American football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Orange Bowl is one of the most important bowl games, see [128], [129], [130], [131], [132]Esolo5002 (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ROUTINE and WP:ITSIMPORTANT applies. This is not about the notability of the games itself. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply due to failing WP:LISTN. WP:NOTTVGUIDE—"An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc."—does not apply here, as the article in question is neither an article on a broadcaster nor does it list upcoming or current content. Dmoore5556 (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:ROUTINE mentions that create a WP:TRIVIA list that doesn't meet notability. Conyo14 (talk) 22:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SpacedFarmer: You're practically speaking very subjectively when you state that this is another case of something to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, especially without accompanying evidence to backup such a general statement. It almost sounds like your your saying that something like this shouldn't be around because you personally don't care, heard much of, or understand or have much reverence college football or its history and background. Just because it may not personally appeal to you doesn't instantly mean that there's otherwise, little merit in something like this. BornonJune8 (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I said appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans, I meant this list, not the sport as a whole. Did you pay attention to that? Of course not. As an non-American, we all know how popular the sport is to you Americans. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NB: This user (BornonJune8) has a history of exclusively targeting my AfD with a keep vote, despite how weak they are. This was because I nominated one of his article for AfD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:59, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you pay attention to that? Of course not.
Please keep it civil. Zanahary (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources dating back to the 1950s on television are being added at this very moment. And more will soon come to help bolster the WP:RS needs. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source is about an announcment of an analyst, the other is an announcment of TV coverage. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, there are at least 70 different references, and almost 60 just recently added in regards to not only CBS' earliest television coverage of the Orange Bowl, but their coverage in the 1990s. There also are now references/sources that have been added for NBC's television coverage from the 1960s on through the early 1990s and Fox's coverage during the late 2000s. Sources for ABC's during the late '90s and first portion of the 2000s and ESPN's coverage from the 2010s on through the present day just need to added as well as sources for the radio coverage. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I had a check: some focuses heavily on the games with the coverage being a side piece, some are WP:PRIMARY, some are announcments or talk about the announcers, some are 404. Like Wikipedia, you know that IMDB does not count as a reliable source. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list was almost entirely unsourced when it was nominated at AfD. In just a couple days of effort, some 70 sources (of varying quality) have been added. Combine the ongoing sourcing effort with the fact that this was for nearly a century one of the big three college football games (Rose, Orange, Sugar), I lean to keeping. Cbl62 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that added sources can be further reviewed. Also, please no personal comments about contributors and accusations about motivations that are obviously unsupported. Focus on policy, sources and notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I expect the article to improve though. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reviewed the sources and I'll chalk it up to this, IMDb is not a reliable source, press releases are WP:ROUTINE mentions, WP:NYPOST, and finally, there are some sources that are reliable, but do not provide the significant coverage that are necessary to sustain such a grouping. Therefore, it is within the topic of WP:LISTN, that my !vote remains. Conyo14 (talk) 07:06, 31 May 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.

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. Ignoring the back-and-forth accusations of COI/SPA, the arguments on the Delete side are based more on source analysis and guidelines, not to mention being decisively more numerous than the Keep !votes. Owen× ☎ 15:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waqar Zaka

AfDs for this article:

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this subject, a VJ-turned-television host and a cryptocurrency enthusiast, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SNG. I found only https://www.dawn.com/news/448557/chit-chat-meet-waqar-zaka this interview and nothing much. Lkomdis (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: OP blocked. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note:This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Lkomdis (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP: I'm curious how someone who someone hasn't been active on WP suddenly pops ups after four years of silence to nominate this BLP for deletion and throwing around accusations that I'm a paid editor and causing a stir about my editing behavior too. BTW, this BLP isn't promotional like they're saying over at WP:COIN. Feels like some undercover agents got activated once I started calling out Pakistani UPEs. I feel like this should be WP:SK because I'm not buying the editor's intentions. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. You acted like you owned the page, which makes me think that you and Aanuarif have an unreported financial interest in promoting Waqar Zaka, Editors do not own articles and stop attacking other editors based on your assupusons, it will not save the article, as you defended in second nomation here There is ongoing discussion on COIN about this, Regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. So let it be reviewed by the community.

And the nature of your edits look you may have conflicts of interest, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Lkomdis (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something to think about if I had a COI and was getting paid by Zaka as you claim, why would I remove all the PROMO stuff about him? Instead, I'm adding STUFF that might not make him happy. Anyone can check the page history to see if I'm the one who added the PROMO or the one who deleted it. And BTW, since you mentioned @Aanuarif, if you had bothered to check their tp, you wouldn't be saying what you're saying. Absolutely baffling. - how in the world does Zaka think he could pay me to scrub his PROMO from his own BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you stop editing after being caught slipping in WP:PROMO and WP:OR into the BLP? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed) Aanuarif (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, Discussion on COIN about this still open, so don't don't conclude the result of this nomination or COIN by yourself, let the community review the whole case, as you are in a list of ongoing COIN discussion and a potential candidate of COI, I will suggest, please don't make any further edit to Waqar Zaka, as you recently did. Lkomdis (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Politicians, Music, Television, Cryptocurrency, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Saqib as the user responsible for 50+% of the article text, do you want to comment on the specific issue of notability? It does seem there's not much there other than interviews which are typically disregarded (or nearly so) in notability discussions. In terms of independent content I'm looking at the Samaa article about a trading contest, and the article about him being arrested for cannabis, but not much else.
Personally I think it will in most cases be uncivil to make COI/UPI/Sock allegations at talk pages (and none are made here). It seems very appropriate to make them at the COI noticeboard. Similarly, there's an instance of seeking guidance from an administrator about your editing, which seems to be good faith even if it might feel like an attack. The last diff ostensibly has nothing to do with @Lkomdis. If you are suggesting this meets speedy keep because it's brought for improper purposes, that could border on uncivil as well. Oblivy (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject absolutely fits the bill as a Creative professional. How so? Well, he was the force behind some seriously popular Pakistani TV shows like Champions with Waqar Zaka, XPOSED, Living on the Edge (Sabse Himmat Wala Kon?), King of Street Magic, Desi Kudiyan, The Cricket Challenge and Video On Trial - just to name a few. Even though these shows might not have their own WP articles but they have definitely received coverage from various RS. HERALD's states Zaka started his television career in the early 2000s and gained recognition as the host and director of Pakistan’s first adventure/dare game show, Living On The Edge. Other shows he is recognised for, and sometimes ridiculed, include XPOSED, Desi Kuriyan and Video On Trial. And this HERALD's piece states Its host and director was Waqar Zaka who has carved a name for himself in the genre. HERALD was a highly reputable and esteemed Pakistani publication. I'm confident others would concur + He's recently co-produced a film called Babylicious and lately, he has jumped into the cryptocurrency and is getting loads of press. Sure, some of it might be paid to make him look like a crypto genius. On one occasion, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa appointed him as an expert (when he's not) in its advisory committee but it does suggest he's getting attention in this field too. Recently, he was accused of involvement in crypto fraud as well. So if you're not seeing much press coverage on him, you might wanna check out DAWN, The Express Tribune, Daily Times, The News The Nation and so on - all those are legit RS and they've got plenty to say about him - both positive and negative. Additionally, there is abundant coverage of the subject in Urdu language sources but I feel it's not appropriate to consider them here as we're on English WP and thus should prioritize English language sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. It would seem odd if brief career summaries in newspaper articles, like the Herald article, demonstrated he is an important figure for WP:CREATIVE. The rest of the mentions in the Herald article are based on an interview. And press coverage about crypto or legal troubles doesn't go anywhere towards satisfying creative professionals (although it might show WP:GNG if he's assessed under another standard).
I haven't been through all the search results you pasted in but it seems like quite a bit is either self-promoting (something you acknowledge is a risk here) or based on legal troubles. Could you provide the three sources you think best demonstrate notability? I just don't know enough to vote but I've got an open mind. Oblivy (talk) 07:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to clarify that those Herald stories weren't provided to establish WP:GNG. They were just there to show Zaka was the brains behind those TV shows and the shows themselves got press coverage from RS so as per WP:CREATIVE, he's in the clear. Take Champions for example. It got so popular - even if for all the wrong reasons- that it got banned by Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority. And for Living on the Edge, he says India straight-up copied it for MTV Roadies. According to the Express Tribune (the local partner of The New York Times), this show had a solid eight-season run and was a major cash cow for the channel. According to the same Express Tribune, Zala has a cult following thanks to his TV shows. And then there's his film production Babylicious, which got a bunch of reviews as well. Meanwhile, If you check the links I provided previously, you'll see he's been in the press way more than our average Pakistani actor. Sure, some of it might be paid, but there's plenty of legit coverage too. I could pull out the top three examples if you want, but honestly, we don't even need to argue about WP:GNG. WP:CREATIVE's got our back here. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to trawl through your searches to figure out what you think is going to help this article pass ~~GNG~~ notability. So far I've seen a bunch of "this guy is a legend and we interviewed him" articles but based on that I'm not inclined to vote up or down. Oblivy (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like you're clearly missing my point. Who asked you to review based on WP:GNG? Also, I didn't provide any search results in my above comment. I suggest you read my comment again timestamped 09:46. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think merely being the presenter of a TV show counts as "creating or playing a major role in co-creating" a significant work. Otherwise we'd consider every actor starring in a TV show to be a "co-creator" and we wouldn't need NACTOR. And being one of several producers of a film isn't really sufficient either -- it's made pretty clear in the linked source that the major creative force was the director. I think you will need to establish GNG to have case for notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, Like I said above, Waqar hosted those TV shows, so I reckon he fits WP:CREATIVE, which states The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work.. Anyway, I think I've made my points. I really don't have a strong opinion about this or any other BLP and I'm not looking to be defensive. If the community disagrees with my opinion, I'm cool with that too. Let's keep it moving. There's a ton of work to tackle. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A show host is not the same as a show creator: we do not automatically consider star actors to be "creators" of the works they appear in, that status is reserved for the writers/directors. The "role" in that guideline is not referring to an acting role. JoelleJay (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, So, like I mentioned earlier, he was the guy behind a bunch of reality TV shows which were very popular, doing everything from producing to directing. Take "Living on the Edge" for example, that youth reality show that was a big deal in Pakistan—he was the executive producer there per this RS. Plus, per the same DAWN piece, he wore many hats at The Musik, directing and producing. He was the director of BOL Champions season 1 per this and also co-produced Babylicious - while this states Waqar Zaka is the pioneer of the reality show called Desi Kuryian So yeah, he ticks off a bunch of the criteria for being NCREATIVE, including being a NDirector and NProducer. While BBC calls him a "social media sensations" in Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - meets WP: Notability (person). The subject is a controversial and popular social media personality and politician. Sameeerrr (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)[reply]

Keep: Subject obviously notable with significant reliable sourcing. Haruka Amaranth 13:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to inadequate independent sources in the article, and nothing new of note offered at this AfD. Subject certainly seems to have been a part of significant cultural pieces but the creation or major role required for WP:CREATIVE hasn't been demonstrated. Non-creative endeavors, like the criminal history and cryptocurrency activities aren't sufficient to pass notability under GNG or other standards. Oblivy (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oblivy, What do you mean by "inadequate independent sources"? I can't find any reference that isn't independent of the subject. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is the 3rd AFD on this article and I'd like to see a clearer consensus based on policy and the quality of sources (specific comments are more helpful than generalizations).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Assessment Analysis

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://jp.reuters.com/article/crypto-currency-pakistan/pakistan-moves-to-bring-cryptocurrency-boom-out-of-the-dark-idUSL4N2MY2QY/		according to WP:RSP, Reuters is a news agency. There is consensus that Reuters is generally reliable, Probably organic source	~	~ Partial
https://www.bbc.com/urdu/pakistan-56991694	in Urdu language	BBC is renowned to be reliable		✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20190412131604/https://dailytimes.com.pk/375662/waqar-zaka-to-launch-cryptocurrency-to-help-pakistan-pay-off-its-debts/	?	? probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1104219	?	? probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://www.dawn.com/news/448557/chit-chat-meet-waqar-zaka	?	? mere interview		✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/507331/i-am-giving-pakistanis-a-platform-to-vent-their-frustrations-waqar-zaka/	?	? probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/879155/i-am-the-reason-why-some-people-now-rule-the-entertainment-industry-waqar-zaka/	?	? probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2020/04/10/waqar-zakas-show-champions-remain-suspended-ihc-rules/	?	?	Not opening, dead link	✘ No
https://propakistani.pk/lens/#google_vignette	advert site			✘ No
https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1125800	?	? probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20200413074930/https://www.samaa.tv/entertainment/2020/04/lewd-headphone-show-designed-to-help-audience-insists-waqar-zaka/	~	? archived, Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://www.thenews.com.pk/tns/detail/1030194-heres-what-weve-gathered-from-the-four-corners-of-the-world		Probably paid promotion	~	✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2448056/waqar-zaka-tried-to-sabotage-my-position-as-a-morning-show-host-nida-yasir	?	? Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://dailytimes.com.pk/1148194/waqar-zaka-claps-back-at-nida-yasirs-allegations/	?	? Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/529514/waqar-zaka-hopes-to-go-from-cobra-to-constituency/	?	? Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://tribune.com.pk/story/837229/waqar-zaka-says-line-pe-ajao/	?	? Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://ecp.gov.pk/Documents/Downloads/General%20Election%202013/Detailed%20Gazzette/Notification%20-%20National%20Assembly.pdf		Non existent pdf		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20181128123043/https://www.aaj.tv/2013/04/main-banoonga-minister-waqar-zaka-strives-to-contest-elections/	Not opening.. Dead link	Not opening.. Dead link	?	✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20190419213558/https://www.samaa.tv/lifeandstyle/2019/04/we-may-never-see-waqar-zaka-on-tv-again/	?	? archived	?	? Unknown
https://web.archive.org/web/20190530064649/http://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/493945-Waqar-Zaka-seeks-apology-nation-destroying-young-minds/		archived site	~	✘ No
https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/396309-arrese		Probably paid press	~	✘ No
https://dunyanews.tv/en/Entertainment/467143-Waqar-Zaka-arrested-over-possessing-sheesha-denies-consuming-alcohol	?	Link not opening	~	✘ No
https://www.samaa.tv/20873698-solo-champion-waqar-zaka-wins-solo-trader-round-of-bitcoin-world-cup	?	?	~ Probably paid promotion	? Unknown
https://www.samaa.tv/20873569-bitcoin-world-cup-waqar-zaka-eyes-victory-ranks-3-among-2-500-traders	?	? Probably paid promotion	~	? Unknown
https://www.brecorder.com/	?	Probably paid promotion	~	✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1727704	?	? Probably Paid press	~	? Unknown
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/1027586-fia-s-final-charge-sheet-accuses-waqar-zaka-of-luring-public-into-illegal-cryptocurrency-trade		Probably paid press	~	✘ No
https://www.dawn.com/news/1731030	?	? Probably paid press	~	? Unknown
https://www.dawn.com/news/1735220	?	? Probably paid press	~	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment of the Source analysis': I took out time to carry out source assement for all the 29 sources used. From the above, I found that only two WP:RS (Reuters and BBC Urdu) featured the subject partially. The rest of the sources used were mostly unknown and unreliable. They don't qualify as WP:RS. They all contain Paid press which either promote the subject overly or discredit the subject. I therefore conclude that WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are not met by any means. Cheers everyone! Maltuguom (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Maltuguom, I've to disagree with your assessment because you've labeled even those news stories that were critical of Waqar Zaka as "paid.". I'm just curious about why SPAs (like you and Lkomdis (talk · contribs) are showing a lot of interest in this AfD and who seem to only want this BLP deleted. I hope the closing admin will take into account that this isn't solely about WP:GNG but also about WP:NCREATIVE criteria and also probably think about taking SPA comments into account, especially since you haven't been in an AfD since 2020. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saqib,My dear, what I did is an unbiased source assessment in line with Wikipedia policy. I am not supporting any side. The source assessment is very clear and unbiased. Take a look at it critically and at my comment. It's left for the admin to decide. I didn't vote "delete" nor "Keep". It's just a clear unbiased assesment based on wikipedia policy of WP:GNG. Most of the sources fail WP:RS. This is very clear! Likely paid promotions both for and against the subject. Why can't we see those articles on reliable WP:RS??.

Mind you! I have participated in AFD n few occassions in the past. I stopped because of the un-encouraging attitidue of editors like you. Why do you add me to an SPI simply because I did what is right and unbiased? I am not in any way linked to that SPI. My account is not a sleeper. I edit when I am free. I came on this to access the sources in line with the wikipedia policy.

Why are you bent on attacking every single vote or comment? It's uncalled for my dear. Let's have a rethink. Allow the admin to take a decision in line with wikipedia policy and guidelines. Cheers.Maltuguom (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maltuguom, You got it wrong in your assessment. Those DAWN news stories aren't unreliable or paid for. In fact, they're critical of the subject. And BBC Urdu didn't just partially feature the subject; they gave it significant coverage, contrary to what you claimed. Anyway, like I said, the BLP should be evaluated based on WP:NCREATIVE because the subject has played major roles in numerous TV shows and a film. And yeah, I filed an SPI because I think there might be some puppetry going on here. It is indeed fishy that an account that hasn't been active in AfD since 2020 suddenly pops up out of nowhere to throw in their 2cents on this AfD, especially when this AfD was originally initiated by a blocked sleeper account. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, the source analysis is clear on BBC and Reuters. Those are the only two WP:RS. BBC featured the subject significantly. Check the table well. The subject and his cronies used DOWN and other unreliable sources to churn out paid promotions. His enemies also used same to launch attacks on him. I saw all of that by reading through each of the sources. A few of the sources are dead links. Why can't both parties used BBC, Deadline, and other WP:RS. TAside from the BBC, there are no other organic sources cited. Also nothing stops me from participating in several AFD's all through this period just to cover up as most guys do. I won't that. It's not needed. I simply being honest and unbiased. Cheers.Maltuguom (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're labelling all Pakistani sources, even the big ones like DAWN and Express Tribune, as unreliable. It's kinda funny, because those are like, the most respected ones in Pakistan. Do you have any proof they're paid? And even if they are, like, who cares? As long as our BLP isn't turning into a PROMO, we're good to go. And even if some links are dead, we can always hit up the Wayback Machine to bring them back to life. And lastly, we're not here to judge based on GNG, but NCREATIVE, and this dude totally fits the bill. Whether the coverage is paid or not doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with @JoelleJay that a showing that the person was the creator or played a major role in the creation of significant works is needed. That needs to be shown with reliable sources. @Saqib can you point to sources where those two elements - significance of the work, and major role in creation -- are asserted by an independent source? I asked before but you demurred.

GNG is indicated because of WP:BASIC, unless you only want to rely on NCREATIVE (in which case, see my previous paragraph).

With respect to your comments to @Maltuguom, if sources are paid-for they aren't independent and don't count towards WP:BASIC. I see no reason we would accept non-independent sources for WP:NCREATIVE especially considering that WP:RS requires independence (Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). While I disagree with much of the above source analysis, simply hand-waving away lack of independence doesn't mean "we're good to go." As an experienced editor currently participating in a lot of deletion discussions, I assume you know this, so I'm not sure what's motivating the above comment. Oblivy (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


TV shows/films	Roles	Reference
Living on the Edge Pakistan's most popular TV reality show	Director	^[1]^[1]^[2]^[3]
XPOSED	Creator and host	^[4]^[5]
King of Street Magic	Creator and host	^[5]
Desi Kudiyan	Creator and host	^[4]^[5]
The Cricket Challenge	Creator and host	^[5]
BOL Champions season 1	Executive producer	^[6]
Babylicious	Executive producer	^[5]^[6]
The Musik	Director and producer	^[1]^[7]

So, I've put together a table listing some of the TV shows directed, produced, created, and hosted by the subject. These are just a few examples, not an exhaustive list and I've made sure to cite independent, RS to back up the information. Now, some of these shows have WP articles already, indicating their noteworthiness, while others, like Living on the Edge don't yet have articles. However, just because they don't have articles doesn't mean they aren't significant works. For instance, "Living on the Edge" was Pakistan's most popular reality show per DAWN as well the Express Tribune, and substantial financial success, as reported by The Nation.

Love him or hate him, Waqar clearly meets the NDIRECTOR and/or NPRODUCER. Serena Menon of the Hindustan Times even refers to him as a Pakistani pop sensation, and highlighting Waqar's hosting skills being compared to those of India's Raghu Ram so, if Raghu Ram qualifies for a WP BLP, why not Waqar? And for what it's worth, Zaka is also recognized as a "social media sensations in Pakistan" by BBC. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c "Chit chat Meet Waqar Zaka". DAWN.COM. 7 March 2009. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
^ "Qandeel Baloch: Unmasking Patriarchy in Death". The Wire. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
^ "What being 'bold' means for women". Herald Magazine. 9 November 2017. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
^ ^a ^b "The Wire: The Wire News India, Latest News,News from India, Politics, External Affairs, Science, Economics, Gender and Culture". thewire.in. 13 January 2018. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e "Waqar Zaka bore brunt of being critic of PTI policies". www.24newshd.tv. 26 June 2023. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
^ ^a ^b Shan, Muhammad Ali (29 June 2023). "Waqar Zaka Steps Into Film Production: "Babylicious" Reviving Pure Romance In Pakistani Films". BOL News. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
^ Salman, Peerzada (29 June 2023). "Premiere for Babylicious held". DAWN.COM. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

Delete He was the host of some non notable shows in the past. Shows are lacking notability not because they dont have wikipidea page but because there is insufficient coverage on google. The available coverage about him is also limited, often focusing on crypto currency activites. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you're thinking this vote is payback just because I nominated some pages for deletion that were made by UPEs. Because seriously, how can you just brush off those reliable sources that clearly say he was the creator, director or producer of those shows I mentioned in the table and that there's not enough coverage about Zaka's shows. Seriously? Every single one of his shows is all over legit sources. Like, come on! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this statement from The Wire says it all "Zaka started his television career in the early 2000s and gained recognition as the host and director of Pakistan’s first adventure/dare game show, Living On The Edge. Other shows he is recognised for, and sometimes ridiculed, include XPOSED, Desi Kuriyan and Video On Trial."

I'll be honest, I don't have any sense of how important Living on the Edge is. The rest of it seems clearly to fail on "significant". Note that #1 is an interview which should get low or no weight.

@Saqib considering WP:AGF do you perhaps want to strike your comment about payback? Oblivy (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not backing down from what I said. It's super obvious if one check out Libraa2019 involvement in AfDs and why they voted to delete here. It's like a total retaliation vote.This editor is all over creating and editing bios of not-so-famous actors, but they voted to delete this BLP just because I said keep. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite numerous warnings, you are contineously harrasing me by calling me UPE/sock on multiple platforms without any single evidence, i will report you to admin for this. Retaliation is what you are doing and i am unable to understand what is your motive behind insulting me everytime. Being a Pakistani editor with interest in Entertainment, i have all the rights to participate in Pakistani related article's AFD and share my opinion. As far as my creations are concerned, they have already kept in AfD because community is thinking they are notable [133]. You are not an admin to decide whether the BLP is notable or not. All you can do is respect others opinion which is not that much hard, dont you think? Libraa2019 (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libraa2019, Could you please share here diffs if I recently accused you of being a UPE or even a sock? This SPI was filed by someone else, not me. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You endorsed that SPI by connecting me with another user without any solid evidence [134], even wrote on Wikimedia Commons "the user is socking on English WP" [135], you accused me of socking on commons without any evidence. You initiated AFD's by calling me UPE [136] [137], all of my creations are nominated by you with similar statements & i am unable to understand your behaviour as many editors have told you that my picking of sources is correct and they recognized my efforts [138], [139], [140], [141] [142] but you objected all of them and you want yourself to be proven correct everytime. Libraa2019 (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, close to the borderline of WP:GNG, fails WP:NCREATIVE per the sources available and before search results. I agree with the source analysis to a high extent but I have a little bit of doubt as to how all the national media platforms listed are not reliable. What I found was that those specific articles from some of the sources are unreliable because some appear as PR or paid for articles. The BBC and Reuters articles are reliable but not enough to establish clear cut notability. The publisher of this [143] may be reliable but the specific article cited here is unreliable because it is an interview and the headline itself says it all “Chit Chat Meet Waqar Zaka”. This [144] is a mere passing mention of the subject. This [145] and this [146] appear organic but I suspect a PR material pretending to be an organic press article. These two sources are published in two different newspapers but their completely same from byline to headline and the body of the article. My suspicion is particularly heighted for the fact that most news outlets named The Wire are always news agencies distributing PR materials. The date of publication of the article in Herald shows Updated 10 November 2018 while at the bottom it say the article was first published in June 2017 Issue. Then it was published in The Wire on 13 January 2018. This may be a PR campaign. This [147] seems to be a paid press announcing the release of the film, it was an objective review of the film it would have been clear where this source stands. This [148] is a clear sponsored post instructing people interested in his show to download an app of the sponsors of the program. These [149] [150] sources only gave passing mentions are simply in the article populate it. Several links seem dead and can’t be accessed for an assessment. For the trial, it does not seem to be a serious trial because the before search did not turn up strong media coverage expect of a person possibly being tried by the state. Using a few sources about the trial may mean that subjects who are charged for all kind of offences and received two or media coverage may want to use that for their qualification for a Wikipedia page. Piscili (talk) 09:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Piscili, I repeat this shouldn't be judged on GNG but on the NDIRECTOR / NPRODUCER. And by the way, I'm still wondering why there's a bunch of SPAs throwing in their delete votes on this AfD. You've only been in three AfDs since you joined WP. What drew you to this one? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Did you make 100 AFD votes at once when you started voting (commenting) in AFD? I have only three or four AFD comments but slowly it will build up to a great number. And I take my time to analyse sources I do not want to be commenting Delete per nom.. Why attacking me for my comment? In the past couple of weeks I was active in Recent Changes Patrol and now I am expanding to other parts of this collaborative work. But even IP address can comment in AFD why can't I comment too? Why is AFD so toxic? Piscili (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Piscili, I'm not the only one with suspicions about you. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, I have made my comments and only closing admins will decide the merit of my comment. I should be able to freely comment in any AFD I chose to but what you are doing now is intimidation for whatever reason best known to you. I am here to help uphold the editorial guidelines not to please any one. If you disagree with my critical analysis of sources so be it. Only admins are the judges here if they decide otherwise in this AFD I am fine with it. That will be a learning curve for me. Piscili (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The most recent source assessment does a good job of highlighting the PROMO issues I have with the sources. Even if we consider his being director of a couple shows as sufficient for NCREATIVE--which I don't--that is still only a presumption of notability, while per N (WHYN) establishing notability requires multiple pieces of SIGCOV in IRS even for subjects that pass SNGs. JoelleJay (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- JoelleJay, I disagree with @Maltuguom's source assessment. They labeled every single source except, BBC and Reuters, as unreliable and paid, even though most of the coverage was critical of the subject, like in these examples: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this etc. From what I understand, subjects are considered notable if they are directors, producers, or even if they have significant roles (incliding creators) in TV shows. This guy meets all those criteria. I'm curious why we have BLPs on less famous Pakistani actors but not for someone who is a popular, albeit controversial, TV figure in Pakistan. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  So every director and producer is notable just because they produce or direct just a few movies? It is deeper than you think. There must be significant coverage to meet those notability criterion. Ludamane (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Ludamane, Why not? This section states People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Such as The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per source analysis to which I have nothing much to add. This is a non notable subject and should wait until such a time when notability meets at least WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Articled contains so much unreliable sources. Ludamane (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another sleeper account joining the AFDs for the first time, i guess! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have taken ownership of this AFD otherwise why throwing accusation at every editor that comment in this AFD? I have read countless AFD discussions with lengthy threads more than this particular one but never have I seen single editor being uncivil in their discussion as you do here. This is a non-notable subject and majority opinion show that this subject does not meet any notability criterion. Ludamane (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not implying that everyone here is a sleeper account, but it's worrisome that some including you who've never engaged in AfDs before are suddenly joining in, especially when this AfD itself was initiated by a sleeper account. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not check who initiated this AFD and my position here is based on the unreliable sources in this article. Subject is not notable and there is no need wasting so much time and energy on this. Ludamane (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem logical to label respected Pakistani publications like DAWN and The Express Tribune as unreliable sources. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article from the DAWN is a very short interview and that's mostly categorised under primary sources more so that that interview was very trivial and did not discuss any serious issue of much public interest Ludamane (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saqib, please stop. You opened a SPI about 2 users who !voted Delete, not sure it was appropriate nor wether it will be endorsed but that should be enough. Assume good faith and consider NOT commenting on every !vote that does not go your way. I generally don't comment on behaviour issues unless I am personally involved, but your comments do not seem to be made in a constructive spirit (and that is an understatement, believe me). Thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've got over 6 editors voting for deletion here, but I've only filed SPI on 3 of them, not all. My worries are totally legit. These 3 sleeper accounts, never even glanced at Pakistani pages before, NOR ever participated in AfDs before. Anyway, I'm throwing in the towel on this one. Don't really care if this BLP sticks around or not, but I'm still scratching my head over why someone's going all out to axe this BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but that is simply not true. Piscili and Ludamane are not "sleeper" accounts and they had participated in AfDs before. I have no time to comment anymore on the issue, sorry. Still, I'm inviting you again to change your approach. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, Sure, I'm stepping back from this now. But before I bow out, I've to say that this is seriously risky. Anyone could get a BLP wiped out like this, even if the subject clearly meet WP:N. I dropped a note on your tp explaining that this subject isn't just some ROTM figure in Pakistan. He's controversial, sure, but undeniably popular and gets loads of press coverage in RS. And here's an interesting tidbit: even Jimmy Wales himself once edited this BLP. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, you need to see this [151] [152] its the hatred i received just for sharing my opinion. Libraa2019 (talk) 13:55, 23 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aamna Malick

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

This actress does not fulfill the criteria WP:ACTOR as I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows NOR does their coverage satisfy the basic WP:GNG. A significant portion of the sources referenced lack reliability . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- per WP:BASIC, [153],[154],[155]

[156], [157] Otbest (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otbest, I'm curious how a user who just began editing 2 days ago is already participating in AfDs. BTW, the references you provided aren't even RS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sourcing seems to be weak (mainly tabloids), but it looks like she may have some notable television credits?-KH-1 (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- KH-1, No. Only minor roles. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: some of her numerous roles in notable productions look significant enough for her to pass WP:NACTOR -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:21, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- But I don't see any. If that had been the case, she would have definitely received some press coverage, at least some ROTM coverage at a minimum. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage consists either of tabloid coverage (see WP:SBST) or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs; no significant coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:07, 30 May 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.

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!} 03:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Beg

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

So at first glance, this BLP looks legit but upon but digging deeper, I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows or movies as required per WP:ACTOR. Also, when I tried to find more about the subject per WP:BEFORE, I didn't come across enough coverage to meet WP:GNG either. Plus, it's worth noting that this BLP was created back in 2021 by a SPA Sahgalji (talk · contribs) and has been mostly edited by UPEs so there's COI issues as well. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: some of her roles in notable productions seem significant enough, so that she meets WP:NACTOR imv and deletion is not necessary. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushy Yank, In which shows, if I may ask? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Chupke Chupke, Pyari Mona, Hum Tum.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) (Again, sorry but so many Afds related to Pakistan/TV series, I might not reply here any further, should you, as I expect, not find the sources to your liking for one reason or another or if clarifications are needed; it was already challenging for me to find time to check some of them and !vote).[reply]

It's not a matter of whether I like a source or not. It's obvious that the sources are clearly not reliable, no even for WP:V purpose. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In looking at the original article and the SPA creation & editing of this article, as well as other articles that mention the subject, it is likely this is an autobiography. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I am 100% certain that this is not an autobiography. Even if it were, that is not necessarily a valid deletion rationale. UPE might be an issue though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Inadequate sourcing fails to directly details the BLP subject. The subject is verified but in my opinion (based on applied, presented and found reliable sources), doesn't meet GNG, ANYBIO or NACTOR. BusterD (talk) 22:20, 4 June 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.

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 keep‎. This is a close one, but given the additional sources and expansion of the article, the arguments to keep the article have more weight. An alternative take would be that there is no consensus, but my read is that the additional sources identified have changed things. Malinaccier (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Orzech

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Artur Orzech

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

Seems to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL reality show host. Fails WP:GNG. 178.164.179.49 (talk) 06:43, 8 May 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 May 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which reality show? He did not nor does he currently host a reality show. He is an accomplished artist and journalist with very wide recognition in Poland and pretty cult following because of his hosting of the Eurovision transmissions. I wholeheartedly disagree with RUNOFTHEMILL label. 84.188.101.102 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A well-known Polish presenter and Eurovision Song Contest long-running commentator having commentated 26 contests. If we consider this RUNOFTHEMILL, we will need also to consider Peter Urban (presenter), José Luis Uribarri, José María Íñigo and many other well-known Eurovision Song Contest commentators' articles for deletion. Qcumber (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Well-known" is not a valid reason for deletion. And don't do the Pokemon test. - 178.164.179.49 (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, sir/madam, please, be polite. And explain me what does it mean "pokemon test". And if we need to consider this article for deletion, why don't we need to consider for deletion the articles I mentioned above then?

Thanks! Qcumber (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that the article is not expanded enough. Because of this 2021 events take the most part of the article. It's not good. The label prompts that someone will at least take the information from Polish Wiki. But I agree with 84.188.101.102 - I don't think that there is a srong reason to delete the article with RUNOFTHEMILL . Qcumber (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Source in the article are routine mill entertainment news, promo, nothing that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. BEFORE found similar, but nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 15:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to be a well-known Polish journalist, and his references to music broadcasters and cited content appear to be verified.Sanwalniazik (talk) — Sanwalniazik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Weak keep. Could find more and better sources than on e.g. Fredrik Renander or Amun Abdullahi.Atlassian (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's focus on existing sourcs that establish notability, not on a subject's reputation or notoriety.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick googling showed many sources: [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166].

As well as article collections with and about him [167], [168], etc. Atlassian (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider myself competent to evaluate their quality, but taken on face value, the Polish Wikipedia version of this page appears more thoroughly referenced. Lubal (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously passes GNG per sources on our WP page and Polish page, which also include a printed encyclopedia, more is easily findable via Google (see Atlassian examples above). The RUNOFTHEMILL label seems like an excuse to ignore the coverage and not provide an adequate deletion rationale, and describing the subject as a 'reality show host' shows that the IP (who has since made a lot of questionable edits) didn't even bother to read the page, let alone do a minimal WP: BEFORE. --Cavarrone 07:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First thoughts: this article in its current form is rather lopsided to focus on the "dismissal" and reads more like a news article about that occurrence rather than being a biography about Orzech. After review: other editors are correct in pointing out that the sources used here (and actually in the Polish Wiki as well) are passing mentions that he served as commentator, mainly for Eurovision. While at first I was impressed with the size of the Polish Wiki page and the idea that perhaps his bio was more developed there, it is in fact just a prose version of a list of times he'd provided commentary or hosted a program; more like a resume than a biographical overview. The provided sources do not go into any depth about the positions to establish his notability; the sources are instead about the events he was part of. Overall, I do not believe that the subject meets GNG and NBIO. Grk1011 (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per coverage which are extensive. Per sourcing which are third party and reliable. Overall I would say WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 08:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 11:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would concur with Grk1011's assessment of the article. The parts on his background and career at TVP are wholly unsourced, and background is also wholly unsourced on the Polish article. Even within the Polish article, which would be the main start for improving this article, it reads more like a CV/resume than an article, and there are large chunks which are unsourced and thus fails WP:VERIFY. WP:BLP, and specifically WP:BLPRS, means that we have to have sources for any information which is potentially challengeable, which would result in cause for the the first two paragraphs to be likely for removal. Taking that aside, we then have an article which is exclusively about the subject's issues with TVP management and the resultant removal from TVP and return following the change in government; having an article with only this means it would fail on WP:SIGCOV. In general I don't believe even with the sourcing available on the Polish Wikipedia or mentioned here that there is enough verifiable referencing to pass WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He is important enough that his departure from TVP in 2021 was covered by Polish newspaper of reknown, Gazeta Wyborcza, [169], and said article even included a (very short, yes) paragraph about his background (earlier career). Considering other sources present, I think the notability is here, sufficient if not impressive. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is very popular and recognizable journalist and presenter in Poland. Besides, he is an iranologist and authored a book about Iran, as well as a musician, member of popular rock band. I have expanded the article basing on its Polish version and added some sources. Niegodzisie (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the appreciated expansion by Niegodzisie. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:54, 3 June 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.

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 no consensus‎. Editors seeking a Merge can start a discussion on the article talk page and the talk page of the target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Whelan

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

Contested WP:PROD for a game show winner lacking independent notability per WP:GNG and WP:BLP for two key reasons:

(1) On notability, in contrast to other reality television show winners with articles, there is no evidence in the article of other public aspects to Whelan that would justify their discussion beyond the appearance on the show: no post-appearance career, appearance on other media, other notable contributions. Whelan's other personal details in the coverage are not the reason she is notable and themselves would not give rise to an article.

(2) My view is that there is no content on this page that could not be better subject to a WP:MERGE on the page Squid Game: The Challenge. Even if Whelan is deemed notable due to the coverage of her appearance on the show, the four sentences about her, if the sum of information known about her, is hardly information that isn't simple to cover on the article for the one thing she primarily inherits her potential notability from.

As ever, open to views! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Vietnam, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We probably have enough for notability based on the game show win. [170] is also another source. Oaktree b (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP1E, fails GNG and NBIO. Winning a game show does not make a subject notable, there is no indication this one event was notable, or that anything else related to the subject would meet GNG or NBIO. // Timothy :: talk 08:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, textbook case of BLP1E, and the relevant event is not such as to confer any kind of lasting notability. --Cavarrone 15:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I wouldn't say that every winner will be notable but certainly the winner of the inaugural season of a very famous competition. Given the extensive coverage of her win and the controversy surrounding her allegations (later taken back) that Netflix was delaying the payment, I think the subject fulfills the criteria for inclusion. YerkaIlson (talk) 07:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:55, 18 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unzela Khan

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

It appears the subject doesn't meet the WP:JOURNALIST or WP:AUTHOR, as their works don't seem noteworthy enough. The press coverage in WP:RS also not significant or in depth enough, so fails to meet WP:GNG. Does not satisfy WP:N —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Pakistan, and United Kingdom. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is not noteworthy.

Crosji (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or better to be moved to the draft Kotebeet (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I disagree with the nominator. A British Muslim Awards recipient is already qualified for a Wikipedia entry per WP:ANYBIO and from the article was cited to a reliable source per WP:RS. Also, as a journalist of a notable newspaper or TV which she was for Huffpost give us assurance of passing WP:JOURNALIST. She also wrote a book which is notable enough to qualify WP:NAUTHOR. What's then needed for an article? Not being braid doesn't mean it came be a standalone article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @Saqib, @Crosji, and @Kotebeet for the argument per se. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I so saw so may PR but was able to get reliable ones. See here and here. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 06:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, I'm curious about how she meets the WP:JOURNALIST criteria simply for working at Huffpost. The policy doesn't say anything like this. Additionally, is writing just one book sufficient to meet WP:NAUTHOR? —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One book which is reviewed by reliable sources is considered as notable. But may not require a article. However, we usually have problem when journalists wrote about others as few or less writing about them, in other way, winning an award for such excellence in media is part of both ANYBIO and JOURNALISM. While these are additional criteria, the article generally meets our general notability guidelines where being cited to reliable sources, verifiable and significantly covered per WP:SIGCOV. Even as there isn't any fact for such, a redirect should have served better not only when she won a major award and a book mistake reviewed. Let's be truthful herein and ignore certain additional essays. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because the article raises concerns regarding its credibility due to several factors: 1) Excessive Referencing: With only six sentences, the presence of ten references seems disproportionate. This abundance of citations may suggest an attempt to over-validate the content rather than provide genuine support for the points made. 2) Questionable Contributor: The primary contributor, "User:Kotebeet," [contributed approximately 80% of the content], is no longer active on the platform. This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor.--Crosji (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, you are wrong here. I disagree that an AFD process requires the author except in major cases like undisclosed WP:UPE or thereabout. I am asking you do look at the article by our process of inclusion; WP:GNG. If you have any issue with the creator, then face them. I can't find any argument you're making besides you vote says "not noteworthy". Meaning? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crosji, also there is no issue of WP:REFBOMB here. I don't seem to understand your statement This raises doubts about the reliability and verifiability of the information provided, as there is no way to verify the expertise or credibility of the contributor, when a creator doesn't require anything on whether to delete an article or keep them. However, this is a process and you can't vote twice. Do remove any of the votes. Thanks! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Focus on policy, not issues that can be addressed via editing and Crosji, please strike your duplicate vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 13:28, 26 May 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.

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 keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of television programmes broadcast by ITV

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NOTDIRECTORY/NOTTVGUIDE. List criteria is programming "that are either currently being broadcast or have previously been broadcast", Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide, current or historical. Fails NLIST, no independent reliable sources discuss this as a group. BEFORE found programing schedules, nothing more. List has grown so much is it hard to tell if any of it is original programming, BEFORE did not find sources showing original programming discussed as a group. // Timothy :: talk 07:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 3 May 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 13:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nominator. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 13:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. — Maile (talk) 17:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ A couple of comments on the nomination. For those more familiar with television elsewhere, the UK traditionally only had a very small number of TV broadcasters - the ITV group was one of two from 1955 to 1982, the other being the BBC. So there is a lot of original programming in that list - prior to 1982, about half of the UK's locally-originated TV programming was made by one of the ITV companies. In terms of reliable sources discussing this as a group, one I'd suggest is Asa Briggs' The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, Volume V: Competition, which has a lengthy chapter (Audiences and Programmes (1955-1960), pp141-255) discussing the early development of ITV programming across a range of genres and contrasting it with BBC TV in the same period. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Two more references for notability: ed. Stuart Hood, Behind the Screens: the Structure of British Broadcasting in the 1990s discusses ITV programming as a group in the Television, Audiences, Politics chapter; Jack Williams, Entertaining the Nation: a Social History of British Television contrasts BBC and ITV approaches across several genres. (Jeremy Potter's Independent Television in Britain, which picks up the history of UK TV from where Briggs left off, has loads of discussion of ITV programming, but it was commissioned by the IBA so it doesn't count for GNG.) Adam Sampson (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I find the Keep vote and comment above convincing. Content was covered as a set so that this meets WP:NLIST; and if this rather standard page should be deleted, it should indeed imply a broader discussion. The page is less a "TV guide" than a history of a notable network. Can be considered a split/detailed articles. At the very least, anyway, a redirect/merge, should be considered, if size is not an issue (but it is; 74 kB WKtext for the main article; 34 kB for the list). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:51, 28 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 13:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA All-Star Game broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Also LISTCRUFT (or WP:CRUFT). The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are about the game itself, many of those are YouTube links and none of those assert notability to this list. I also advise them to start a Fandom page if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with sourcing from [171], [172] and [173]. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't stop the fact that this is still noting but a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Less about WP:NOTTVGUIDE as it doesn't necessarily apply here, but since each broadcast and crew can be covered in each All Star Game, the collection in itself is not notable. Conyo14 (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NBA All-Star Game is the National Basketball Association's big marquee annual event outside of the NBA Finals. Any further relevant information and sources always added to the article (such as through the aid of Google News Archives and what not) that can will help give it more notability. Also, the individual articles for each All-Star Game doesn't specifically specify or identify the exact role for each announcer like the play-by-play announcer, color commentator, sideline reporter, studio host, etc. This is where the lists in particular come into play as its presumably, a simpler and linear way to now about the television and radio broadcasting history and background. BornonJune8 (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above in case you didn't read, WP:USEFUL covers the point you made. Also, WP:ILIKEIT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, adding TV listings as sources will not support your argument. This isn't 2004 anymore. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @SpacedFarmer: I don't understand your own argument about how adding TV listings as sources will not support my argument. How can you argue that the list previously didn't have enough sources to assert its notability and yet, immediately discount newspaper articles from those exact time periods. To me you can't argue that something needs to be deleted if it's mostly unsourced per WP:RS and then say that said sources like TV listings. Many of the sources that I added thus far by the way, were not simply and just general TV listings (like bullet points), but paragraphed and fairly detailed articles. What does saying that "it isn't 2004 anymore" have to do with anything? I don't exactly get your point and argument there and why that's of any relevance. BornonJune8 (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  WP:ROUTINE applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this particular article was placed in an AFD, approximately 136 different sources have been added to help boost its notability. Previously, there were about 119 different sources, but now there are approximately 255 in total. Every decade for the All-Star Game on television has now been sourced consistently since at least starting with ABC's first televised All-Star Game in 1968. BornonJune8 (talk) 9:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Information about the annual television ratings and viewership averages for the NBA All-Star Game dating back to 1990. Has now been added. BornonJune8 (talk) 8:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Lean Keep. Taking a quick look, there seems to be a decent amount of coverage when it comes to the broadcasters for the NBA All-Star Game. BornonJune8 has added also added sources so that it now exceeds 250 references. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that WP:REFBOMBING does not help with determining if this meets the WP:NLIST, rather we need to see the broadcasters discussed as a group. That being said, the nom does seem to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Let'srun (talk) 23:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that? I was defending my decision to nominate this list for AfD. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as the broadcasters aren't discussed as a group in non-primary sources. Willing to change my mind if better sources are found so please ping me if that happens. Let'srun (talk) 15:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an article from the Orlando Sentinel from 2002 regarding NBC's telecast of the NBA All-Star Game, which is its final NBA All-Star Game telecast to date: NBC SHINES IN ALL-STAR BROADCAST. The 1998 All-Star Game, which was called by Bob Costas, Isiah Thomas, and Bill Walton for NBC, is discussed here. Here's another article that delves into the highest television viewership in NBA All-Star Game history. The viewership/ratings for the 2003 NBA All-Star Game on TNT, the first ever to be broadcast on a cable network is discussed in this article from the New York Times. And here's a rundown from Bill Simmons on ESPN.com about the 1987 NBA All-Star Game, which was televised by CBS. Going back a bit further, here's an article on the 1981 All-Star Game from Cleveland, which was also aired on CBS and had Gary Bender, Bill Russell, and Rick Barry on the call. Before CBS, ABC held the network television rights to the NBA, and here's an article from NBA.com on the 1973 All-Star Game from Chicago that was called by Chris Schenkel and Bill Russell. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should be in an article about broadcasting in NBA All-Star Games, not a list about a list of NBA All-Star Game broadcasters. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. These sources would be perfect for an article discussing the history of broadcasting in regards to this game. Let'srun (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about broadcasting in NBA All-Star Games and its overall history to begin with. That's pretty much the whole point or intent in my estimation or perspective. I don't exactly understand or get what point that you're trying to make. Unless, you're saying that there should be more context/information behind the individual network coverage of any given year beyond simply listing names. Besides, there's already a more broad-scale article on the history of the National Basketball Association on television that has a section on the All-Star Game. While it does list the networks and viewership totals since 1990, it doesn't specific the the names of the commentators (play-by-play, analysts, hosts, etc.) for the respective years. BornonJune8 (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as another editor said elsewhere, a list can serve valid navigational purpose and not have sources discussing all entries as a group. Here are a collection of pieces that perhaps, does exactly what you ask: The NBA in the 1970s: Roone’s Revenge, NBC’s NBA Nostalgia Play, Hoop Streams: The Rise of the NBA, Multiplatform Television, and Sports as Media Content, 1982 to 2015, The NBA Strategy of Broadcast Television Exposure, 5 Highly Improbable Facts About The History Of the NBA On TV, THE NBA ON NETWORK TELEVISION: A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS BornonJune8 (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

would be perfect for an article discussing the history of broadcasting in regards to this game – Then move it, don't delete it and require it to be started completely all over. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT ,fails WP:LISTN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not seeing the problem here. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:53, 26 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Bradford

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

Not a notable actress and very promotionally written article. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to her television work, she is also notable as a stage actress. See https://www.broadwayworld.com/people/Brittany-Bradford/#credits Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I drafted the original stub because she was the only of the six actors listed for Julia that didn't have a page. Given the sources I had available I can see why it reads a little promotional would love to see improvements. Guidelines for notability: "The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." On the second point she was the only woman of color in that group of six actors, and one of the few in whole program. Jake (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The actress is notable. It needs work but the article has potential and I can't see any legitimate reason for it to be deleted. 2001:8003:6C0A:B100:94AF:C1F1:3164:C5DD (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NBIO. Source eval:

Comments	Source
Name mention Routine mill entertainment news, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV	1. Grobar, Matt (2024-03-05). "Artists First Signs 'Julia' Actress Brittany Bradford, Multi-Hyphenate Amanda McCants". Deadline. Retrieved 2024-05-02.
Name mention Routine mill entertainment news, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV	2. ^ Reiser, Zach (13 January 2021). "David Hyde Pierce, Brittany Bradford To Star In HBO Max's Julia After Series Order". Theatrely. Retrieved 11 May 2024.
Name mention Routine mill entertainment news, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV	3. ^ VanArendonk, Kathryn (March 31, 2022). "Cozy Up With Julia, a Warm and Welcoming Treat". Vulture. Retrieved 2024-03-22.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS	4. ^ "Brittany Bradford on Alice's Julia Child-Inspired Evolution in HBO Max's 'Julia' [VIDEO]". Awards Daily. 2022-06-06.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS	5. ^ "Go Behind the Scenes of Julia with Brittany Bradford". Town & Country. 2022-04-28. Retrieved 2024-05-02.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS	6. ^ "Video Actress Brittany Bradford talks 1st screen role in 'Julia'". ABC News. Retrieved 2024-05-02.
Name mention Routine mill entertainment news, fails WP:SIRS does not address subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV	7. ^ Witter, Brad (1 April 2022). "This French Chef Producer Partly Inspired The Character Of Alice On Julia". Bustle. Retrieved 11 May 2024.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS	8. ^ DeShong, Bonnie (19 May 2022). "An AAFCA conversation with Brittany Bradford from HBOMax series Julia". Chicago Crusader. Retrieved 11 May 2024.
Interview, fails WP:SIRS	9. ^ "Interview: Brittany Bradford and Thomas Sadoski on Introducing Alice Childress's Wedding Band". TheaterMania.com. 2022-05-04. Retrieved 2024-05-02.
Photos, promotional, fails WP:SIRS	10. ^ Putnam, Leah; Gershonowitz, Heather (May 12, 2022). "See Photos of Newly-Extended Wedding Band Starring Brittany Bradford, Veanne Cox, More". Playbill.

Nothing found in article or in BEFORE that meets WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth per WP:SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 12:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable supporting actress. - Altenmann >talk 22:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:ANYBIO Drama League Award [174] [175] Wasilatlovekesy (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep I disagree with the above analysis that the Deadline article "does not address subject directly." It is only a few paragraphs but it recounts her career to date. There is also an indepth review in the NY Times of her performance in "Wedding Band." In this she was the lead, not a supporting actress. While the interviews will not by themselves support GNG, they can be the source of data for the article. Lamona (talk) 02:33, 21 May 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.

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 14:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament Final Four broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and United States of America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with sourcing from [176], [177] and [178].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Esolo5002 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't stop the fact that this is still noting but a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The sources provided are about the ratings which can be a blurb in each Final Four article. However, media sections regarding which station, play-by-play, and color commentator is not necessarily notable to collegiate basketball (men's or women's). Conyo14 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All 14 sources are WP:PRIMARY. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:12, 16 May 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aja Aja Tayo! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Silvestri Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukaina Khan (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faria Sheikh

Other XfDs

Television proposed deletions

Template:See also

[dawn/7mar09-1] "Chit chat Meet Waqar Zaka". DAWN.COM. 7 March 2009. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

[2] "Qandeel Baloch: Unmasking Patriarchy in Death". The Wire. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

[3] "What being 'bold' means for women". Herald Magazine. 9 November 2017. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

[thewire/13jan18-4] "The Wire: The Wire News India, Latest News,News from India, Politics, External Affairs, Science, Economics, Gender and Culture". thewire.in. 13 January 2018. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

[24newshd/26june2023-5] "Waqar Zaka bore brunt of being critic of PTI policies". www.24newshd.tv. 26 June 2023. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

[bol/29june23-6] Shan, Muhammad Ali (29 June 2023). "Waqar Zaka Steps Into Film Production: "Babylicious" Reviving Pure Romance In Pakistani Films". BOL News. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

[7] Salman, Peerzada (29 June 2023). "Premiere for Babylicious held". DAWN.COM. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 == Television ==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mid-Life Crustacean}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WZDS-LD}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Take_My_Muffin}}