Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:51, 10 June 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 redirect‎ to List of characters in the Family Guy franchise#Cleveland Brown Jr.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Brown Jr.

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet general notability guidelines. The little significant coverage mentioning this character is not about the character itself, rather focusing on the show at large. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Comics and animation. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in the Family Guy franchise#Cleveland_Brown_Jr. - The sources currently in the article are extremely weak, either being primary, or a couple sentences from an interview. Searches did not turn up much better - the character is mentioned in general coverage of the show(s) he appeared in, but nothing close to any kind of significant coverage that would justify a independent article. A general overview of both the fictional and real world history of the character is already included in the main franchise character list, so this should be Redirected there. Rorshacma (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. This doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, but there is a valid WP:ATD and redirect target here. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters in the Family Guy franchise#Cleveland_Brown_Jr..Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:30, 16 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!} 21:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector Chingum

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

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added a few things. If judged insufficient, redirect to Motu Patlu#Recurring. Again, I am inviting the nominator to PLEASE slow down nominations of Indian animated series or to directly and boldly redirect them to obvious related articles if they think apparent notability issues need to be addressed urgently. THANK YOU. Taking a page to Afd with a minimal rationale may take some time but checking sources, improving the page, verifying potential targets, etc, also does. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to boldly redirect articles to other articles because I believe in the significance of discussion and reaching consensus. M S Hassan (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! Thank you for your comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would not redirect to Motu Patlu#Recurring because that page segment too has no sources, no inline citation and possibly contains original research. I would have redirect to the production company if they had a page with this spin-off in the list of production. Reviewing the sources, the indepth coverage is insufficient and fails general notability guideline. RangersRus (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 17:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the English sourcing is borderline-sufficient for GNG, and there appears to be Hindi-language coverage as well. It might be better to merge with Motu Patlu, but I'm not familiar enough to have an informed opinion. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:54, 24 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. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters

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

Work itself does not appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:N. Sourcing, aside from primary sources such as tweets and youtube discussions, are mainly interviews and discuss the author far more than the work itself. Artist is possibly notable, however this doesn't seem to quite meet the notability bar. Mdann52 (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Mdann52 (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Swampy Marsh: for now? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at that target. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem that was easily fixed. See Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and now it's borderline WP:UNDUE. Seriously, a not-yet-extant project with minimal RS coverage should not get more characters than a Phineas and Ferb revival, should it? Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn’t have more characters? There’s a whole multi paragraph section about Phineas and Ferb, compared to a single sentence that mentions the announcement of the SALEM show. Doesn’t appear to have any DUE issues. Raladic (talk) 18:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with ONE sentence mentioning it and turning it into a redirect as Musky Yank proposed. Historyday01 (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's one sentence on this (as added) and one sentence on the 2024 planned revivial. That's probably UNDUE. That is, this is such an insignificant part of Marsh's career that per DUE it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~The sourcing for this page is strong enough to keep, so for now I'm going to say weak keep.~~ But, if it comes down to it, I'd be fine turning it into a redirect to Swampy Marsh, but... deleting this page outright would be a disservice to those who worked on the page, so a redirect would be my second choice. Historyday01 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Update: I am changing my opinion to the following: Redirect to Swampy Marsh (first choice) and Draftify (second choice). This counts as my solitary vote for this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect or draftify (in case anything further comes of this) is also a good outcome here, unfortunately I was struggling to find another article to redirect this to. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, and further sourcing will emerge later on if work/release dates re-emerge. Mdann52 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree, that's why I stand by my previous opinion. I personally do NOT trust the draft process entirely (its too easy for a good article to be held up there, and the draft process is really for Wikipedia beginners to be perfectly honest).Historyday01 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historyday01 you appear to be the primary author and maintainer of this article. In fact, perusing the history I don't see that anyone BUT you has contributed substantially to the article--everyone else appears to be cleaning/polishing your work. You don't mention this, nor that one of your added sources was previously removed as promotional. Rather, you refer to yourself obliquely in the third person those who worked on the page which also smacks of attempts to conceal your relationship to this article. To put it bluntly, your work on this article may well be that of an overenthusiastic hobbyist, but it also looks distinctly like COI or UPE. Can you confirm that you have no specific relationship, financial or otherwise, with the project or its contributors? Jclemens (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, you are correct that I am "the primary author and maintainer of this article", and surely I'm the main contributor, I won't deny. If one of my added sources was removed for being promotional, that's my error for not knowing it was promotional. I'm not referring to myself in the third person here, but I was trying to be inclusive of ALL the people who have contributed to this, including myself.

I'm no "overenthusiastic hobbyist" or anything like that, I just felt this subject should have an article. In response to your question ("Can you confirm that you have no specific relationship, financial or otherwise, with the project or its contributors?"), no, I do NOT have any special relationship with the project, not at all. In fact, I have tried to keep up with what is going on with the project but there haven't been many updates. This is why I personally support a ~~weak keep or redirect (second option)~~ my above mentioned !vote.

I have attempted to improve the page over the years... It happens sometimes that a single person works on the page. I would LOVE if more people worked on the page, but sadly that has not happened. I made the page years ago when I had more time, but nowadays I don't have as much time to do Wikipedia edits. I could have surely done better with the page, but I suppose this AfD was inevitable to some degree, I just would like the text to be preserved in the event that this series DOES premiere, it can be brought back at that point. Historyday01 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historyday01 My point about draftifying was to save the article to an extent - I would expect it to be redirected and draftified (or at the very least, I would add a redirect in should it be deleted given we have a valid target identified). This isn't me trying to downplay the effort or work that has gone into it - unfortunately often AfD is the best way to gain a consensus for such things. I agree that the draft/AfC process is broken to an extent, but you don't have to use that process. Mdann52 (talk) 16:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I have to agree. I've seen some AfDs go off the rails before and be totally worthless, including some calling for an article to be deleted and then doing nothing to help improve the article after the AfD ended, which is a bit depressing. The opinions of SOME people in this discussion (not you) is damaging my confidence to create future articles, as their comments are a bit harsh and pointed. Honestly, this article definitely needed to be examined again, so in that sense, this AfD is worthwhile, although I can't, in good conscience, support deletion of an article which I've been a been a big contributor in, because that would make me too sad.Historyday01 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional and NN. This Wikipedia article is serving as promotion for a "project" that started "development" in 2018. It's not there, it's not going to be there, and the refbombing with press releases, interviews in NN niche publications, and tweets reeks of G11. I note nothing since 2022 in the article. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a promotion for the project and the fact you would say that (and wrongly accuse me of having some sort of connection to those who created this series) is deeply unfortunate, especially coming from someone who boasts about saving articles on your user page. I guess this article doesn't matter to you. Simply put, if you really wanted to improve it, then why haven't you done any edits on it? I mean, you could have done something to improve it since it was created. I detest nothing more than editors who don't put in the work to improve articles (it seems you have in other articles, but unless I missed something, I don't see any edits from you on this article). As I've said in many AfD discussions, deletion is not a solution for cleanup of articles. I'm guessing NN means "non-notable" which I have to dispute. As I said above, I support a "weak keep" or "redirect" at this present time, and I will NOT be changing that view. If it really comes down to it, I would support this becoming either a redirect and/or a sentence or two about it at Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show (there's two good sources which show his involvement). My !vote is mentioned above. If so, the mention of the series on Swampy Marsh's page could be:

"In 2019, Marsh was described as the executive producer and voice director of S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters, with his company, Surfer Jack Productions, producing the series.^[1]^[2] The series is created by a queer woman named Samantha "Sam" Sawyer, based on her unpublished comic of the same name.^[3]^[4]

It could be of interest to those who follow Marsh to mention this. If this text was added, then the article could be changed to a redirect, and then that redirect link could be changed to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show. I've seen some other articles which have done this, so it wouldn't be completely out of the question. I had been roughly planning to add the series to the List of animated series with LGBT characters: 2020–present for a while, but ended up removing it, and mentioning it here. Anyway, your comment could be worded in a much less harsh way. If I was a new editor and I had gotten a comment like that, I would be discouraged from creating ANY new articles. Luckily, I'm not one of those people, but the tone of your comment needs to be MUCH better and more constructive, than trying to (as it looks to me) tear people down.Historyday01 (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Note: I added the new text: "My !vote is mentioned above" but have not changed any other part of this comment, apart from doing a strikethrough for some text.Historyday01 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asserting that you have no financial or other interest in keeping this article or promoting this potential series. I accept your statement, but note that the binary alternative, that you are an overenthusiastic hobbyist, isn't a bad thing in comparison. We're all allowed to have the things that we see more value in than other people do.

As such, no one is asking you to change your !vote. That'd be a bit totalitarian at best: You're entitled to want something saved that isn't ready for Wikipedia, as I maintain that this is not.

Having said that, I'd encourage you to not take this too personally. I know that's hard to do when someone is calling your "baby" ugly... but sometimes a baby is just ugly. In this case, you appear to have put together the best article reasonably possible on this not-media, but it's just not sufficient. Really, you have interviews and coverage of the people involved, but nothing that states this would come close to meeting WP:NFF or similar guideline. Go read up on that, and understand that if we had articles on every single project that's been stuck in development hell, we'd be awash in them. There's nothing to draftify, because there is no evidence it is going anywhere in the foreseeable future. I'm sorry, but that's reality as best I can see it. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider myself some "overenthusiastic hobbyist" as that term seems to be a negative, and its not one I accept, not in the slightest. It's like saying I'm a "history buff". I'm not, and I hate that term, as much as I detest the word "hobbyist." It has a bad connotation and its not one I would ever associate with. I'm not some person who plays around with drones or builds model trains in my basement, I'm someone who cares about certain subjects on here (and in real-life), and that's okay! I continue to disagree with you on this, while I appreciate that you are saying that I "appear to have put together the best article reasonably possible on this not-media" and to not even support a redirect just doesn't sit well with me. As a fair warning, if this series does get up and running again (which is altogether possible), I'm not going to be gung ho to make it a page if this is deleted. I'm going to say it isn't worth my time, believing that "oh, someone will just nominate this for an AfD again, so what's the point." I just don't want it to come to that. I still believe this article has value, and I will continue to believe that, regardless of your arguments to the contrary. I recently posted about this on the four projects on the present article's talk page, hoping to get some more eyes on this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're arguing against characterizing yourself as an overenthusiastic hobbyist, but participating extensively here and stating if things don't go your way you're going to reconsider your editing. Whatever you choose to call that, that behavior precisely what I mean when I say "overenthusiastic hobbyist". Regardless, you're not convincing most participants here. I'd suggest proactively look at WP:THREE and follow that advice. Despite your perception of me, I would like nothing better than to be convinced I was wrong... but having looked through several of the sources, I'm not going to look at arbitrarily more marginal sources. So, build the case for notability and win me over. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about things going "my way," I'm just saying that what will, probably, happen if a certain result is reached. I have no influence over whether people are convinced to keep the article or not. Their decision is their business and it seems too time consuming to try and convince people here to change their minds. People already have their minds made up and there's nothing I can do about that. At this point, all I hope is that the page becomes a redirect. If it doesn't, then oh well. Historyday01 (talk) 21:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Sawyer, Sam (February 15, 2020). "SALEM Animated Series Creator Sam Sawyer, Cryptids, Nonbinary & Witchcraft". Piper's Picks TV (Online). Interviewed by Piper Reese. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020. YouTube video of interview here
^ "Exclusive S.A.L.E.M sneak peek". Inconceivable Events. November 13, 2020. Archived from the original on 19 September 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2021.
^ Johnson, Bill (February 4, 2020). "Artist Sam Sawyer to LVL UP Expo". Las Vegas, NV Patch. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.
^ Sawyer, Sam (December 18, 2019). "Artist Sam Sawyer Creates First Animated Series with Non-Binary Hero". Starshine Magazine (Online). Interviewed by Sandy Lo. Archived from the original on November 18, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.

Delete: Does appear PROMO. Article is solely sourced to tweets, podcasts and non-RS. I don't find anything about this "upcoming" webseries that's been coming since 2018. If nothing has been written about it by now, I'm sure what notability we have left to find. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said elsewhere in this discussion, this article is not promotional and it is incorrect to say it is so. The fact it is not as well sourced as it could have been is my fault. I wish someone (literally anyone) had brought these issues to my attention a year or so ago, as I would have done something about it, as the article's main contributor, rather than getting these comments in an AfD, which is the worst nightmare for an article creator. The fact that this AfD is happening at all is a failure of the Wikipedia system, as it could have been avoided with a discussion on the article's talk page. I would have been happy to discuss it there, but having an article in an AfD is very nerve-wracking and stressful. The article shouldn't be deleted outright, but should be changed, at minimum, to a redirect, or possibly, a weak keep. It is unfortunate that you support a deletion rather than a redirect, and I would hope that you change your view on that. Some series have BAD promotion, so that should be kept in mind. Otherwise, your comment is very harsh and should be much better worded, as the tone is VERY negative. If I was a new editor and I got this, I would not want to make any new articles ever again. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional can be as simple as being listed higher up in search results; having an article here does help with Search engine optimization. This is not meant to be "mean" as I've discussed the facts here and please do not take it as such. You are certainly entitled to your !vote above, but I've reviewed what we have and don't feel either a redirect or a week keep would help in this case. If you are the article creator, please understand that you do not "own" the article, it's part of the wiki community and we all have a part to play in building a better encyclopedia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument that this is promotional is not convincing in the slightest. I understand that I don't "own" the article, but saying it should be deleted is wrong. I just can't agree with that. I maintain that if it comes to it, a redirect would be the best. To wipe this article off Wikipedia together would be not only be unfortunate, but indicate Wikipedia's bias against LGBTQ+ articles, which leeches into discussions such as this one.Historyday01 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion isn't right or wrong; if it has not reliable sources, it's not suitable for here. We have rules in place and this will fall apart if we don't follow them, "just because" isn't a valid reason for keeping this. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are going in circles here. I understand your sentiment that deletion isn't right or wrong but that "if it has not reliable sources, it's not suitable for here" and that there are rules. However, bias always plays into discussions such as this, whether people have that bias willingly or unwillingly. In any case, and at this point in the discussion, I maintain that this article has ENOUGH value to qualify for a redirect. If the series DOES release this year, which I see as not outside the realm of possibility (anything is possible), and reliable sources attest to that release, THEN it can come back into the article mainspace. The idea it has NO value and should be wiped away and thrown in the trash bin is wholly incorrect, as you and the others foolishly favoring deletion (rather than any alternatives), are trying to claim.Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, but we don't need to be creating walls of text at this point; I've said my part, and you yours. I think we're at a good point now, let's leave it at that. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All sourcing fails WP:SIRS, so article fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. Wouldn't a redirect to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh's page (the specific section is mentioned above) be a good compromise here? If it DOES pick up again and there ARE more sources, it can be brought back, but I think there's enough to justify the two sentences (which I purposed above) to at least mention it there. I did find some other sources about it in The Advocate, V13, Reel Librarians (cited as an external link on Librarians in popular culture and on some other pages on here), and The Corsair as well. Historyday01 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Advocate (definitely an RS) is paywalled--not a disqualifier, but can you summarize that? V13 is another interview from 2020, and Reel Librarians is a bare mention from 2021. Nothing I've seen says this is anything other than an aspirational project stuck in development hell. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the fact that the Advocate wasn't added before is that it was paywalled. I think its just an interview with Sawyer. ~~I'm still supporting of a redirect rather than a straight deletion, which would wipe everything about this article from existence.~~ Historyday01 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Struck through some text.Historyday01 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PAYWALL applies: it's still a good source, even if not free, although interviews only contribute to notability as much as the value of the underlying publication venue, and The Advocate would be the highest profile source I've seen discussed here. (note that some deprecate interviews even further than I do). You know you can keep a copy of this in your userspace pending eventual improvement, right? If you put it in draft, it gets deleted G13 in 6 months (IIRC), but userspace is not purged like that. As long as you don't run afoul of WP:FAKEARTICLE NN topics with potential SHOULD be able to live in your own sandboxes indefinitely. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right that I could do that, ~~but personally I think a redirect would be preferable as I already have many drafts / articles in progress.~~ Historyday01 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC) Struck through part of my comment so there isn't any confusion.Historyday01 (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh as an alternate to deletion since there’s a reasonable chance that if it releases the content may be revived, but for now it just might be WP:TOOSOON. Raladic (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's my thought as well. As the main contributor to this, I'd be totally fine with a redirect... I think sometimes people forget that redirect is a good alternative to deletion. Some people in this discussion are even denying that, which seems strange to me. They just want to wipe out this article entirely. Historyday01 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure a redirect is appropriate; this project has been around since 2019, if it's not become notable by now, redirecting to this person's article doesn't bring anything of value. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. It does bring something of value. For those who are interested in Marsh, who is a BIG name in the animation industry, it only makes sense. Your continued harping that this article doesn't bring anything of value to Wikipedia is sounding like a broken record. It is not productive to ending this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify? People have pointed out that the show's not really notable right now, but it could be in the future. But I don't think voting keep because it might be notable in the future is a good reason (WP:CRYSTALBALL, maybe). So my vote is towards draftifying. Not sure about redirecting to the director - the main person of the series is Sam Sawyer, but any ATD works. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Wouldn't a redirect be a bit better than a draft at this point? I only support redirecting to Marsh because he's a pretty big figure when it comes to the animation industry, and Sawyer doesn't have a page as of yet. Historyday01 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The target isn't mentioned at Marsh, though, so it might cause confusion for people who are trying to find it. Spinixster (trout me!) 15:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it will be confusing if we added in one or two sentences about it, using the formulation I mentioned above. If it comes to it, I would be fine with a draft, its just at this point in the discussion and since no one else seems to support "weak keep", a redirect is the first option I favor, and a draft is the second option I favor.Historyday01 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't draft, it's been around since 2018/2019, if it hasn't become notable in the 5 years since, I wouldn't count on a sudden influx of critical notice making it notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with that view. While I personally would lean more toward a redirect, a draft for me, wouldn't be completely out of the question. Historyday01 (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The closer may note that the prime author of this article has peppered bolded opinions (e.g., 'a redirect is the first option I favor, and a draft is the second option I favor.) throughout this discussion, which might be mistaken for multiple !votes. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. That's only because my original opinion was "weak keep" but after continuing this discussion, I later changed to redirect as a first option and draft as a second option. So, that is, in sum, my vote, as it were, for this AfD. It was not my intention to have them mistaken for multiple votes, but rather just restating my opinion as connected to different discussions within this AfD. Historyday01 (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've "unbolded" them all except the first "votes" but there were a lot of them. Historyday01, please stop doing this, it could be seen as disruptive editing and could get you blocked from this discussion. Only bold your original "vote" and not other comments that could be mistaken for additional votes in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But, I no longer agree with my original one, so, I changed it to my updated opinion. You don't need to say its disruptive editing or will get me blocked from this discussion, as that only poisons the well for everyone else who engages after this point. I have gone through and updated the text so as to make it more clear what my own opinion is. I was not being disruptive in any sense, I was only restating my opinion. This whole AfD should have never happened (which happened on Pride Month of all times), but here we are. I also personally don't think relisting this will be productive either (if I have to guess, it will never lead to anything positive). I am abandoning this discussion. I have no intention of ever returning. I've already shared my views here. That is all.--Historyday01 (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Delete, Redirect, Keep and Draftify. A reminder, only BOLD one vote that reflects your opinion on what should happen with this article. If you change your mind, strike any previous votes. Do not unnecessarily bold words that might be confused for additional votes or it could be seen as disruptive editing. One editor=One vote. Also, avoid bludgeonining any discussion. If you find yourself repeating your comments, cancel your post and move on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of good redirect target. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swampy Marsh. There is a possibility that this project will come back in the future, and more than that, due to Marsh's role in this project (and considering his role in the animation industry more broadly), it is worth mentioning this in one sentence, and redirecting this page as a result. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable: subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG (sourcing is very weak, much of it actually deprecated) and there is no obvious redirect target. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with what you are saying and @Traumnovelle, here (see my above comments for that). Other editors have noted a suitable redirect target. Please engage with those editors on that topic, as I no longer wish to participate in this discussion (I've already said enough), which could have been solved through a discussion on the article's talk page rather than bringing the page to AfD, but none of the editors involved (either the OP, or anyone else) decided to go that route, unfortunately.Historyday01 (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be undue to mention this on his page given stuff that actually has a Wikipedia article is only listed in the infobox and given no prose, and a redirect on it's own would just confuse the reader. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion, but not supporting a redirect is unfortunate. I'm a new user on here and comments like this are not giving me any encouragement to post on here again. This whole discussion has a negative tone to it and it says a lot about this site that its still ongoing. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article about content that doesn't exist yet. The affiliation with Swampy Marsh is too tenuous for any content about this (apparently failed) project to be on his article; it is not a viable redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your view is completely wrong. The fact that you are calling it that shows you don't care about this topic. Additionally, the fact you are not supporting a redirect is just as unfortunate. 71.246.78.77 (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Historyday01 has been filed to determine whether 71.246.78.77 is the same person or someone trying to get Historyday01 in trouble. Jclemens (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment here. 71.246.78.77 is not my account. It seems they are wanting to get me into trouble, as you point out. In terms of this AfD, my opinion remains unchanged and I look forward to the conclusion of this AfD discussion so all of us can move forward. Historyday01 (talk) 21:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - The show seems to be in limbo, if not outright cancelled, and the current sources regarding it are not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. Considering the non-notability of this stalled project, redirecting to Swampy Marsh does not seem appropriate, and the sentence mentioning it that was added to that article during this AFD to facilitate the argument for Redirection should be removed. Rorshacma (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFF, it should be considered if it's ever released.Tehonk (talk) 20:13, 23 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 Shemaroo Entertainment#TV Channels. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 21:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chumbak TV

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

Fails WP:GNG; written like a TV guide. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, most of the series are acquired. Imsaneikigai (talk)
Redirect to Shemaroo Entertainment#TV Channels -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shemaroo_Entertainment#TV_Channels. Fails WP:GNG and indepth coverage in the sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shemaroo Entertainment#TV Channels: Fails WP:GNG. ADifferentMan (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shemaroo_Entertainment#TV_Channels.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:51, 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 Shemaroo Entertainment#TV Channels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shemaroo TV

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

Fails WP:GNG; written like a TV guide. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shemaroo Entertainment#TV Channels: Not really opposed to keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Imsaneikigai (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shemaroo_Entertainment#TV_Channels. Same as nomination for Chumbak TV, fails WP:GNG and no coverage in the sources to warrant a standalone page on this channel. RangersRus (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan (talk) 17:53, 11 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.

Post-closing comment: This article appears to be draftified (Draft:Shemaroo TV). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KPDF-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arizona. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Even the ex-Una Vez Más stations seem to have the lack of notability and significant coverage shared by many of the other eventual HC2/Innovate stations. Beyond the 2007 at-least-plans for a local newscast, the overall history is the usual parade of national services of many an unremarkable LPTV. That said, its absence from the bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles might hint at something being out there… but this isn't the article's first nomination either, as it survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KPDF-CA in 2006, a time of far looser inclusion standards in this topic area than today (but in hindsight, the lone "delete" in that discussion's rejection of the "FCC license means notable" consensus of the era might actually be more in line with the GNG-based standards that followed this 2021 RfC, and have taken more hold over the past year or so). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HC2 list I spent quite a bit of time trying to find SIGCOV of this station that I thought would have been a SIGCOV slam dunk. (This is my home market, I believe I created this article as an IP, and I participated in the 2006 AfD!) It's tougher than I expected. This station and KUDF-LP, which for many years were co-owned, were able to get on cable in the metro market (because Una Vez Más paid for it!), but the problem in finding regular coverage was that Azteca América never developed roots in local programming. They tried—they had a talk show called Tu vida con Cecy when they launched, and they had Phoenix-specific news inserts in 2013—but it never really worked out, much like the network. And there is no coverage of KPSW-LP pre-Azteca. Now, it's just another HC2 diginet coatrack on which Visión Latina—a national TV network so lacking in media coverage I cannot make an article for it—hangs its hat. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Welp, another HC2 Holdings station descends to the list. Danubeball (talk) 01:39, 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 redirect‎ to A-Plus TV#Drama serials. as a valid ATD. Owen× ☎ 17:18, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nail Polish (TV serial)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:34, 9 June 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 13:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage. Saqib (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to A-Plus_TV#Drama_serials: with a source like this (https://www.republicworld.com/entertainment/if-you-liked-nail-polish-here-is-watchlist-of-other-gripping-courtroom-dramas/?amp=1) for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:17, 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 redirect‎ to BIG Synergy#Fiction shows. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Angrezi Mein Kehte Hain

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Tagged for notability since 2020 DonaldD23 talk to me 13:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and India. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BIG_Synergy#Fiction_shows. RangersRus (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BIG_Synergy#Fiction_shows yes. Note: again, inviting all future noms of programs with coverage for verification but uncertain notability to redirect them boldly without nominating for deletion. It's easily undone and, in that case, if issues are still apparent, Afd remains an option. It will save time to many of us. Thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, As nominator, I support the redirect as listed above. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BIG_Synergy#Fiction_shows.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:38, 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 List of programs broadcast by ARY Digital#Drama series. as a valid ATD. Owen× ☎ 17:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baddua

(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 13:28, 9 June 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 13:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Created by Qwef1234 - a sock of UPE farm. Fails WP:GNG! Saqib (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Drama_series: Not opposed to keep (coverage, including reviews (HIP, Galaxy Lollywood). Note: I am inviting future nominators of such pages to directly redirect them to director/writer/list of programs if notability is challenged and they are sure the sources are not sufficient. It will save everyone considerable time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:44, 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 redirect‎ to Imran Garda without prejudice against selectively merging sourced content that fits with the target page. Owen× ☎ 17:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The InnerView

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

Not yet notable per WP:GNG, or WP:NTV (which is an essay, not a policy). I've hunted around for a few days now for some independent, secondary sources about this show, assuming that a show on the state public broadcasting network TRT World with such wide geographical coverage would have some decent reviews etc in reliable sources, but all I can find is more or less what's here: passing mentions of the show, in articles about the subjects of the interview. 73 of the 84 sources cited so far are from the show's own YouTube channel. Its chief claim to notability is the many notable people who have been interviewed on the show, but on Wikipedia, notability is not inherited. Article creator is a single-purpose account, and no response yet at their user talk page about potential conflict of interest. Wikishovel (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, and Turkey. Wikishovel (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Imran Garda -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Imran Garda. article is not notable (per WP:GNG), has no WP:SIGCOV, and cites some rather strange/primary sources. Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 16:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the article would be better off as a section in Imran Garda. Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 16:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page fulfils all the necessary criteria. Clips from the show have been published by such reputable organisations as CNN, Middle East Eye,[Middle East Monitor and Earth Speed, among others. The page is comprised solely of factual information. The show reaches approximately 260 million homes worldwide through broadcast and thousands more through social media. In my opinion, the Wikipedia page for The InnerView is justified in its existence.The program has hosted a number of notable individuals whose perspectives have significantly influenced the way in which we perceive the world. (Elina Ergunes) 15:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elina Ergunes (talk • contribs) — Elina Ergunes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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. ✗plicit 03:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Andrews (actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

Working actor, reasonable career, but I couldn't find sources available to confirm he meets WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. Lots of mentions on less reliable sites/blogs. Weak keep in 2006 when our standards were much lower. Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: One quite notable role and some mildly notable ones have him meet WP:NACTOR, which is the applicable guideline. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) PS- Added various sources and think the subject also meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources addressing the subject in depth and directly....:D[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, roles add up to enough. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete: it's not about whether the roles are significant or not, it is about whether the role is significant or not. and so far... the only significant role i can find is his role as tommy doyle from halloween. other roles/movies listed in the article do not really make him significant, failing WP:NACTOR brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 08:56, 16 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!} 05:02, 23 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 Star Maa#Drama series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Malli Nindu Jabili

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

Only a single source is TOI which only verifies an actor's role in the series. A WP:BEFORE found references to verify it exists, but no significant coverage to establish notability. CNMall41 (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Star_Maa#Drama_series: Not opposed to keep (https://indiantvinfo.com/star-maa-serial-latest-trp/ and Telugu WP page indicate non-negligible audiences) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Star_Maa#Drama_series. Fails notability. RangersRus (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Star_Maa#Drama_series.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:14, 14 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 14:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Programme level

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

Ambiguous term, unsourced and I found it difficult to find good sources to add. Boleyn (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:52, 15 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!} 07:12, 22 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.. Malinaccier (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WTAM-LD

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

Fails WP:GNG; some references are outdated. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: A history (which, despite what the article implies, actually goes back to the early 1990s, albeit with the license history being severed via a digital companion channel) of mostly national services isn't the path to significant coverage, even before HC2/Innovate took over. There may well be something out there (as best I can tell this is actually this article's first deletion nomination — it wasn't part of that bulk nomination of many other HC2/Innovate station articles), but as currently written this is another remnant of the far looser inclusion standards of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a second St. Pete Times article on WTAM ([1] + [2]). The station history appears to run like this. Owners in the 90s included Carol E. Schatz and Equity Broadcasting Corporation's Kaleidoscope channel (it was W06BE on channel 6 before becoming WTAM). It was sold to US Interactive LLC, which wanted to (and probably did) use the station in wireless internet testing. It gets sold to Lotus (both of these are similar to KPHE-LD Phoenix) and goes Spanish, though attempt number one fails. I just wish we had more to go on. A third solid reference in local media would have me keeping this, but a redirect might suffice. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:00, 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. ✗plicit 23:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alhaqeqa Aldawlia

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

Satellite TV channel based in Jordan that fails WP:NCORP. No independent secondary sourcing at all that I can find; the sources in the article are either database sources (Lyngsat, Jordanian government databases) excluded for notability by WP:ORGCRIT or fail verification entirely. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The editor who created this article has declared a conflict of interest with this subject so we must be especially vigilant to validate notability here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Jordan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 7 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!} 21:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:18, 28 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!} 23:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A TV channel that doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. There is absolutely nothing to demonstrate notability and significance. The four sources [3], [4], [5], and [6] are vagues that doesn't even say anything credible or a handful about the station. If not already in discussion or have exceeded the time, it could have been speedy deletion (A1). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:31, 3 July 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!} 21:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beverley Lyons

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a journalist, not properly referenced as passing notability criteria for journalists. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to have third-party coverage and analysis about them and the impact of their work in reliable sources other than their own employers -- but the sole reference cited here is from her own employer at the time, and thus isn't independent of her for the purposes of building notability, and the article has been tagged for needing more sourcing since 2010 without improvement.
In addition, the whole thing is written very much like somebody did a thinly veiled rewrite of her own staff profile from an employer rather than a proper encyclopedia.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have more than just her own former employer for sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Scotland. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Television, Entertainment, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is completely unsourced apart from one statement about her getting an award; that is sourced to a page on the website of the business she was working for at the time, and merely briefly mentions her. It is neither an independent source nor substantial coverage of her. I have searched for better sources but found none; I picked up LinkedIn, Wikipedia, Facebook, X, websites of several newspapers she has worked for, etc, but nothing that came near to being substantial coverage in an independent reliable source. JBW (talk) 20:56, 11 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. (non-admin closure) CMD (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Burchill

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

I first saw this article when I was looking at the cast of Stoned Bros.. I prefer the information of this article to be transferred in other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Also, this article isn't notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 7 June 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 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Fails WP:NACTOR. All his roles minor usually 1 off appearances in TV shows. LibStar (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I too want this article deleted anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of two co-leads in Stone Bros. so even if nothing else this could be redirected there so there is absolutely no justification for deletion. But it's not just that. His role in Wyrmwood is a significant role so he satisfies WP:NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~ : That's no excuse keep the article and consider it notable. If you consider an article notable and want to keep it, have it expanded by looking for accurate information. If not, then I'll have it deleted. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC) This !vote is from the nominator[reply]
You had already !voted as nominator, as Aviationwikiflight and Liz indicated on your talk page. Kindly strike your !vote, thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC) (and yes, two significant roles are a sufficient reason to consider him notable)[reply]
You can't "vote" twice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Applications of WP:SKCRIT#1 and #3. The nominator has failed to provide an accurate deletion rationale and has also failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, why was this relisted? The initial nomination failed to raise a valid argument for deletion. One of many problematic nominations that are being discussed at ANI. The sole support was flat out wrong. "All his roles minor usually 1 off appearances in TV shows." Quite simply wrong, two major film roles. With no credible delete arguments this should have been summarily closed keep instead of a weak arsed relist. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep bordering speedy for the reasons mentioned above.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Roles in Stone Bros. and Wyrmwood are enough for NACTOR. Also appears to pass GNG with the sources in the article. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:05, 16 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 Golmaal (film series). Discussion about redirecting to another target can continue on the target's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golmaal Jr.

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

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Golmaal Jr has enough sources for it to be an article, the series seems popular in general. TheNuggeteer (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon_Sonic#Animated_series: not opposed to keep; opposed to deletion, given the existing coverage. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Golmaal_(film_series)#Animated_series. 4 sources. One is broken link by sonicgang.com, other is news18, an interview with the maker of the animation series and final two are not on the WP:ICTFSOURCES list. It is also hard to find any secondary independent reliable sources and reviews on this animated series. RangersRus (talk) 14:52, 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 redirect‎ to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#King Grayskull. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King Grayskull

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

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this page to King Grayskull's section in List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters. A quick online search doesn't show this character is notable. Moreover, from my understanding, he's a pretty minor character in the franchise to begin with. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as WP:ATD. Would support deletion due to insufficient sourcing. But there is a clear redirect target that might gain consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:16, 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 merge‎ to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Battle Cat / Cringer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Cat

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

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Comics and animation. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Battle Cat / Cringer, it does not appear standalone notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:21, 14 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!} 06:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Battle Cat's section on the character list. The only things from the article that seem worhty of transplanting there is the "Origin" section as it provides some details on the character's creation.--PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per PanagiotisZois. There are some very limited reliable sources about the origin that can be WP:PRESERVEd. But much of this article is unsourced, making it inappropriate for an article of its own. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of He-Man and the Masters of the Universe characters#Battle Cat / Cringer per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:16, 16 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 List of Gargoyles characters#Demona. Owen× ☎ 13:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Demona

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

The only sigcov source here[7] and a bit useful IGN source [8] still doesn't pass WP:GNG with the demonstrated sources. The best thing is to merge it into a list of characters. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:39, 7 June 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!🍕 (🔔) 11:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Section Move. I find it strange that this character ends up having her own page in this website, so I agree that the majority of the information in Demona's separate article should be merged in the list of Gargoyle characters. Anonymy365248 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's a decades-old character who is still popular today and has appeared in different forms of media including games and comics. --DrBat (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"But without a single reliable source to verify its existence or accuracy, there is no way it can be included" doesn't apply here. DrBat (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm not sure what I'm gonna respond to you. Show me more sources like Mary Sue that really doscuss the character in detail for it to prove that she's really notable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's this article, this interview, and this video. --DrBat (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already brought up the IGN source. Demona is just a passing mention from the AV club source + that youtube source is unreliable. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 03:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The av club one has a whole section of the interview about the character, it's hardly a passing mention. --DrBat (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I missed this sorry, but we don't usually call this WP:SIGCOV as a source somehow since Demona wasn't discussed as a character but as an interview to voice her in a short detail. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 04:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – To List of Gargoyles characters. Fails in WP:GNG for a WP:SPLIT. Svartner (talk) 05:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Gargoyles characters#Demona or keep. I am on the fence if there is enough coverage in secondary sources for a stand-alone article, but we have a reception section based on one here, which is not present at the target. So clearly both deletion and redirection would be a loss for the encyclopedic coverage as compared to the situation now. A merge is even suggested in the nomination. Daranios (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to List of Gargoyles characters. Right now it clearly fails GNG - no prejudice towards a split if reliable sources can be found later. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per Zxcvbnm. A short summary can appear at the character list. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 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 Soyuzmultfilm#TV series as a sensible AfD. Owen× ☎ 17:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rockoons

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

Fails WP:GNG; all coverage both in article and in BEFORE search provides only WP:TRIVIALMENTION. WP:TVSERIES does not apply in the absence of reliable sourcing about its production. As an alternative to deletion, I propose to redirect to Soyuzmultfilm. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Russia. Owen× ☎ 22:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't see how this fails notability. There are sources in the article. I must also add that the addition of the deletion tag seems premature as it was added only 9 minutes after the addition of those calling for the improvement of the article. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added them as part of new page review, which was when I did source analysis and decided they did not meet WP:GNG. Did you look at the (two) sources? They each have a single passing mention of the show, nothing close to WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that the sources should only write about the show? At least they say something like the show is one of the selected ones in the country aimed for more international exposure. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I beg of you to read the WP:SIGCOV page. It's very clear about the kind of coverage required. Brief passing mentions don't count. The sources you cited are fine to include in the article to validate facts, but they don't do anything to establish the notability of the subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Soyuzmultfilm. Article certainly does fail SIGCOV. It's all unsourced fancruft with both citations barely mentioning the subject in passing, as stated by the nom. The show has been around three years yet a Gsearch mainly turns up this while content for the show consists of YouTube clips. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soyuzmultfilm#TV_series (not opposed to keep; added 2 sources for verification; opposed to deletion)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding sources. I agree with your rationale to redirect since the sources are direct links to a video platform and press releases from Soyuzmultfilm and thus don't contribute to notability as a standalone topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because this source^[1] tells entirely about the show, doesn't this count as significant coverage? Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's significant, but it's not independent. At the top it says "Пресс-релизы," or press release See WP:PRSOURCE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this one^[2] a press release? I don't see "Пресс-релизы" in it. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kind of hard for anyone to verify who doesn't understand Russian. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 08:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I myself can’t read Russian web pages, but I can translate them. The same should apply to everyone else. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested is fine, PR items don't help notability. I don't find any else. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the second source I posted here is PR. It doesn't explicitly say that it is. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Праздничный выпуск, музыкальное поздравление в исполнении юных звёзд и много подарков — мультсериалу «Енотки» 3 года". re-port.ru. Retrieved 2024-06-08.
^ "Мультсериал «Енотки» – детские мультфильмы на канале Карусель". www.karusel-tv.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 2024-06-08.

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 Nickelodeon (India)#Animated Series. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gattu Battu

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

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon_(India)#Animated_Series: NB- can we slow down Afd nominations of Indian animated series for a few days, thanks? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:28, 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 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 14:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KWCC-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:29, 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 keep‎. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KXPD-LP

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

Fails WP:GNG; some references are dead links. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oregon. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It looks like the sources are reliable and qualify for WP:GNG. Plus, the dead links can be fixed easily.

Also, like what Danubeball mentioned, the sources are from legitimate newspapers. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 04:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I’d argue that the article’s still worth keeping, as these seem to be from legitimate newspapers, they just so happened to die. --Danubeball (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 3, 4, and 5 in the article seem to be independent RS covering the station. I'd say the WP:GNG is being met here, dead links can be fixed. Let'srun (talk) 01:20, 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 delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KWEM-LP (Oklahoma)

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oklahoma. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Found some sources covering specific shows the station aired but couldn't find anything covering the station itself. Fails to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete… Once again, some good sources, just not enough for Wikipedia. Danubeball (talk) 01:35, 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 redirect‎ to List of programmes broadcast by Hungama TV#Animated series. Owen× ☎ 11:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chacha Bhatija (TV series)

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Hungama_TV#Animated series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Hungama_TV#Animated series. RangersRus (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Wide scope, popular TV series which needs work. Will do after afd closes

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 14:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Cintron

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

Vice President of Communications for the Tampa Airport, winner of multiple small awards doesn't establish WP:GNG for this article subject. In my BEFORE, I could only find mentions related to her work at the airport. The Emmy awards might be notable but they were regional and I wasn't prepared to watch a video to see if this claim was verified. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Florida. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This article as it stands is a collection of trivia and needs to be completely rewritten. (I removed a link to a Wordpress blog among the references.) Two sources might be said to clear the WP:GNG bar: the Tampa Bay Times piece and the Tampa Bay Business Journal article covering her hiring at the airport are both significant coverage of her in secondary, independent, reliable sources. The rest of the sources are trivial mentions (and the "Guide to Tampa Bay" profile is basically a marketing promo). I could probably be persuaded to keep based on the TBT/TBBJ references, but looking at all the sources in context as required, the subject appears to be a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL local broadcast journalist/corporate PR professional whose career does not warrant an article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Puerto Rico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought there would be more coverage of her time as a news anchor, but apparently not. BrigadierG (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree there are two sources that satisfy GNG, per Dclemens1971. A lot of the trivia, specifically any cited by an unreliable source, should be removed. It might make the result a stub but there’s plenty of room for stubs, if they are notable (which, admittedly is determined by consensus). Zsinj^Talk 02:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 19:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not impressed with the local Emmy win. The position held at the airport is non-notable, otherwise, she's simply a local reporter. Seems to be good at her job, I'm just not sure it rises to the level of notability for a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 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 delete‎. Malinaccier (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dilly Braimoh

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of any notability. The BFI source which would have been useful returns a 404 error. The other from IMDB is unreliable. Searches reveal very little, certainly nothing that adds to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here is the archived version of the BFI dead link. Lubal (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. However, having seen the source, it does not actually add anything to notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This book briefly confirms that he grew up in foster care. This news article briefly says he attended Croydon College (not in the article) and did "Dilly Dines Out" (not cited in the article). Overall, I'm not finding many sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A prior AfD discussion ended in soft delete, so I would like to get a bit more input and get firm consensus to delete or keep the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, article stand on only one source! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:37, 19 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 Pogo#Animated series. Owen× ☎ 17:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty Raju

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Pogo#Animated_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Pogo#Animated_series. RangersRus (talk) 15:02, 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 redirect‎ to Green Gold Animations#Television. Malinaccier (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudra: Boom Chik Chik Boom

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

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 12:54, 5 June 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 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Nickelodeon_(Indian_TV_channel)#History~~Green_Gold_Animations#Television (thanks, RangersRus, that's a better target): if coverage is considered insufficient. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Rudra: Boom Chik Chik Boom aired on both Nickelodeon and Nickelodeon Sonic channels, and it is also digitally available on JioCinema and Amazon Prime Video. Therefore, redirecting it to Nickelodeon#History might not be appropriate. This situation parallels that of Shiva. M S Hassan (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply there. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)--->changed target, see above and !vote below.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Green_Gold_Animations#Television. RangersRus (talk) 15:05, 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 redirect‎ to List of programmes broadcast by Nickelodeon Sonic#Animated series. Malinaccier (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shiva (TV series)

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 13:00, 5 June 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 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Hinduism, and India. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon_Sonic#Animated_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank Shiva aired on both Nickelodeon and Nickelodeon Sonic channels, and it is also digitally available on JioCinema. Therefore, redirecting it to Nickelodeon Sonic programming list might not be appropriate. M S Hassan (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. True. But it was originally broadcast on N. Sonic and N. only. And the latter does not list the series, whereas the NSonic list does (and the first is a part of the latter, fwiw). If you find a better target (Viacom 18?), consider I agree. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to delete it rather than redirect it to another article. M S Hassan (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see! I'll stand by my redirect and target then. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon_Sonic#Animated_series. If Viacom18 page had list of shows it produced, I would have redirected it there. RangersRus (talk) 15:14, 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 redirect‎ to Thanthi TV without prejudice against merging any properly sourced relevant content. Owen× ☎ 17:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanthi One

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

Fails WP:GNG; written like a TV guide. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : The article's subject is notable. Thanthi one is an airing new TV channel from Daily Thanthi Group in Tamil Nadu. They already have one channelThanthi TV. strong source from (www.dailythanthi.com, www.afaqs.com, www.medianews4u.com, cinema.vikatan.com). It deserves to be kept. in future can we add more source. This is not TV guide, only added programs broadcast by Thanthi One. Official Web (Thanthi One, Thanthi One's channel on YouTube)--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 15:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A channel could be notable; sourcing now is very PR-ish and I can't find anything better. This is written like a program guide, not appropriate for a wiki article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thanthi TV. This is likely a case of WP:TOO EARLY. Note that www.dailythanthi.com and www.dtnext.in. are both owned by Dina Thanthi, which are self-published sources. DareshMohan (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreliable sources and fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thanthi TV The title is a viable search term, but Thanthi One is so new that it does not have notability on its own, nor do all the writeups from related media confer notability (WP:NEWSORGINDIA). A mention in Thanthi TV that a general entertainment channel was started is about all we can do right now. It's also worth noting that this channel has no original programming, merely dubbed programs produced for other entities. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an all-rerun channel and its connection to the news-heavy Thanthi TV is very tenuous at best, so I don't feel a redirect would be proper here. Nate • (chatter) 01:50, 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 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 14:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KSOY-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, 2 good sources isn’t exactly enough to work, but it’s close enough for a weak delete. --Danubeball (talk) 01:33, 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 merge‎ to University of California, San Diego#Student life. (non-admin closure) Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K35DG-D

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

Fails WP:GNG; merge with University of California, San Diego#Student life. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 12:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Merge it with a merge tag instead of an AFD tag then? Still think it should be merged, it’s just a weird choice not to use the tag. Danubeball (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No support for delete, just a vague comment on merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Television stations meet GNG based on their publicly available license application alone. There's an SNG that explains this but its name eludes me. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge They had a license, they stopped operating and they fail WP:GNG. Merging to the mother-university is the best option. The Banner talk 07:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with University of California, San Diego#Student life: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Contray to what the IP said, we no longer keep television stations articles just because the station is licenced by the FCC, based on this 2021 RfC. All we have here are some FCC licenses, which don't qualify as SIGCOV. Merge as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 14:11, 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. ✗plicit 14:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mythology of The Librarian

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

Unreferenced WP:FANCRUFT; WP:OR. Characters aleady included in their own article. --wooden superman 12:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Television, and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a pretty clear cut "Wikipedia is not FANDOM" issue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first half of the article is just a bunch of links all leading to the actual character list for the franchise at List of The Librarian characters, and the second half is just unsourced plot material. I'm not finding much in the way of coverage in reliable sources that actually discuss the mythology or lore of the franchise, so the topic fails the WP:GNG as well. Rorshacma (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as appropriate to The Librarian (franchise), the WP:SS parent, as an ATD. I see no rationale articulated in either the nomination or prior !votes that would prohibit or deprecate such an ATD. Jclemens (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What exactly from this article would be appropriate to upmerge here? The characters are already covered both on the main article as a chart, and in more detail in the separate List of The Librarian characters. Likewise, the main article already has a small section on the "Mythology of the Librarian" that gives a brief overview of the topic. And on top of that, there are essentially no source, even primary ones, being cited here to support any of the information being presented. The rationale for prohibiting that as an ATD is simply because there is nothing that would be appropriate to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rorshacma. There is nothing to merge to The Librarian (franchise). Walsh90210 (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. Unreliable sources in most cases, and nothing to merge. Fails WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's all in-universe details without sourcing so there's nothing worth upmerging that isn't already there. hinnk (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The entire article is little more than a collection of original research. There is nothing worth preserving here. Furthermore, the title is a bit too unusual to work as a plausible search term. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 07:00, 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 List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slowpoke Rodriguez

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with the article's main source being primarily about Speedy Gonzales. List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters is partially incomplete and putting the info there would help to fill out that article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see that a merge was tried (and the talk page discussion on this is ancient), and certainly wouldn't revert one myself if I saw it. Does this really need to be at AfD? Jclemens (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I consider any character article too controversial to just boldly merge, so to preempt that I don't see what's wrong about AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom; not a suitable stand-alone article. Walsh90210 (talk) 21:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per nom. -Samoht27 (talk) 14:55, 11 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 14:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banks Broadcasting

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

Subject lacks the needed coverage to meet the WP:NCORP. One possible WP:ATD is redirecting to LIN TV. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Illinois. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – both a Google search and a Newspapers.com search failed to turn up any meaningful results. (Side note in case anyone else does a search – it looks like there was a Banks Broadcasting in the 1970s-80s, but I think it was separate and also fails to meet notability standards.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:37, 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 no consensus‎. Editors interested in converting this page title to a Redirect can discuss this option on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Panta n' antamonoume

AfDs for this article:

(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 11:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and Greece. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Greek name is Πάντα ν' ανταμώνουμε. I find it very hard searching in Greek. Geschichte (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Keep? (or redirect to the channel or to Rika Vagiani, where I've just added it). https://program.ert.gr/details.asp?pid=3844901&chid=11 ; NewsBomb articles https://www.newsbomb.gr/tag/panta-na-antamwnoyme including https://www.newsbomb.gr/media-agb/story/429147/erhetai-to-panta-nantamonoyme) or this kind of things: https://typologies.gr/πάντα-ν΄ανταμώνουμε-στη-δτ-με-την-α/ (and yes, it's in Greek),-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:54, 4 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!} 22:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Might be another No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The show has been on for 10 years and should have some media coverage, but apparently it has remained a local Greek TV show. This article would be more appropriately placed in the article about the show's host.--Saul McGill (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "local Greek"? The show was broadcast on NERIT#NERIT1, the main national Greek television network channel. (Not that I mean to have you change your !vote). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:10, 20 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 04:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riverfront Broadcasting

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP because of a lack of significant, independent coverage of the company. The current sources are either press releases or are covering routine business transactions, and a BEFORE check didn't come up with much better. Let'srun (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, Minnesota, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Let'srun (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:46, 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 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 04:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Television Network

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP because of a lack of coverage about the network's activities. Let'srun (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Let'srun (talk) 11:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 12:44, 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 redirect‎ to Angeline Malik#As a director. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ustani Jee

AfDs for this article:

(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 coverage with trivial mentions or some ROTM coverage like this and this..The page was previously nominated for deletion but was saved because socks associated with Pakistanpedia voted to keep it. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 10:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Someone can recreate this if needed. It's been six years since the last AFD, you'd think there would have been some references found by now if this was notable. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: coverage shows some media attention. If judged insufficient, redirect to Angeline Malik#As a director. Opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A redirect per Mushy Yank's recommendation seems like a reasonable compromise. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - redirect: Redirect per Mushy Yank's recommendation looks good. Cossde (talk) 13:17, 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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of WHA 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. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of nothing but YouTube posts, dead links, trivial mentions, WP:PRIMARY, commercial sites, WP:TERTIARY, blogspot, fanpages and primarily on anything but the broadcasting itself; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Ice hockey, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment so, if this list is up for deletion, why not include all the other broadcaster lists from other leagues and other sports? Examples List of current National Hockey League broadcasters, List of Edmonton Oilers broadcasters, Historical NHL over-the-air television broadcasters, List of historical Major League Baseball television broadcasters, and List of historical NBA over-the-air television broadcasters. There are lots of other similar list artices. ~~I'm leaning towards keep for this article unless it can be made clear why this article should be deleted and the others kept.~~ Masterhatch (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguing that other stuff was not nominated for deletion seems contrary to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Flibirigit (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - After I posted that comment, I had looked at SpacedFarmers edit history and saw that he is in fact nominating multiple similar articles and that he wasn't just picking on some obscure WHA article. Masterhatch (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subjects fails WP:LISTN. Individual parts might be sourced, but as a whole they fail notability. Flibirigit (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This fails to meet the criteria set by WP:NLIST as the broadcasters are not discussed as a group in secondary sources. Let'srun (talk) 10:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The World Hockey Association like the American Basketball Association and the National Basketball Association in professional basketball, is an essential part of the overall history of the National Hockey League. Like was the case with the prior ABA–NBA merger, four of the WHA's franchises were absorbed into the NHL. Television and radio media coverage are for better or worse, an essential part of a sports league's history. The WHA may or may not, have sped up NHL's expansion process. As the story goes, NHL showed little to no interest in any expansion until it was informed in 1965 that without expansion, it would not receive a network television deal. So fearing the loss of television revenues and the emergence of a rival league in the WHA, the NHL expanded to twelve teams for the 1967-68 season. This Sports Illustrated article from June 1973 notes that the WHA in contrast to the NHL's then recent problems, could be have stronger bargaining power in negotiating television contracts. So all in all, how exactly is it merely and little more than "listcruft" to discuss the WHA's media history? It's noted in the article that CBS aired some of the WHA's games for a brief while during the early 1970s. Meanwhile, this book excerpt, briefly discusses whether or not the New England (later Hartford) Whalers games were blacked out WKBG whenever the Boston Bruins of the NHL were at home. Also, noteworthy is that the Michigan Stags where unable to secure a television deal (except for a one-off broadcast on WXON Channel 20 in 1974). Here's an article from The New York Times from 1975 on the Michigan Stags' troubles: W.H.A. Outlook Brighter Despite Stags’ Collapse BornonJune8 (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Another key thing to take note is that the World Hockey Association's championship trophy (and their equivalent to the Stanley Cup in the NHL) was the Avco World Trophy, which was named after the Avco Corporation. Avco also owned the Crosley Broadcasting Corporation during almost the entire duration of the WHA's existence. BornonJune8 (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  But why does it have to be a list then? Why not a History of WHA tv broadcasts? Conyo14 (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That is exactly my question as well. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Yeah, turning it into a History of WHA tv broadcasters is a good idea.Masterhatch (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per BornonJune8. I think between the sources and BornonJune8's comments there's enough to demonstrate adequate enough coverage to pass WP:LISTN. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:25, 5 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!} 22:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ScriptKKiddie (talk) 10:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but reformat per BornonJune8's comment and the subsequent discussion. Perhaps draftify, even? The Kip ^(contribs) 07:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: My only concern with draftification is that, when closing discussions, I typically look for someone who's actually volunteers to take on the task if draftified. Otherwise, we sometimes end up with a delayed (G13) deletion result. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per BornonJune8's comments. Certainly this article could be better. But I think this is a pass of WP:LISTN, and is simply not feasible to include as a section in the WHA article itself. IceBergYYC (talk) 10:28, 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 redirect‎ to Momina Duraid#Television. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Gumaan

AfDs for this article:

(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) 16:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Momina Duraid#Television: Producer -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:04, 16 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!} 22:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heer Da Hero

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

I couldn't find much about this drama in RS except for some ROTM coverage like this in DAWN and coverage like this in Daily Times, which is churnalism and also falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. We need solid coverage to prove GNG, not just trivial mentions or ROTM coverage. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Amar_Khan#As_writer: Coverage including some that contains critical assessment is imv enough to keep this but to avoid long discussions that have taken place during other Afds of Pakistani-related films/actors/series etc, I am suggesting this as alternative to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Coverage in Daily Times ([9]) and Dawn ([10]) is enough. Both are staff written articles. 188.29.129.61 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 188.29.129.61, I did include both of these coverage in my nomination, and I explained why they weren't sufficient to pass the GNG . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for presenting those sources and commenting. For the record, the article in Dawn, signed by Sadaf Haider, and that contains three paragraphs on the series, including critical appraisal, does not seem churnalism nor to "fall under NEWSORGINDIA"; it contains more than trivial mentions or "ROTM": "This script was written by the lead actress Amar Khan and was initially called JanjalPur. After the teasers, many complained this show might be too loud and filmi for Ramazan, but a strong cast and direction pulls the story together, keeping it entertaining without going over the edge.Imran Ashraf is perfect in the familiar avatar of the action hero, beating up goondas (goons) and maintaining peace in the neighbourhood where his father (Waseem Abbas) lost an election. This year ‘Hero Butt’ will ensure his father wins the seat of the local councillor. The opposition is TikTok star Heer Jatt’s family, her father played by Kashif Abbasi and uncle, a corrupt policeman played by Afzal Khan (Jan Rambo), whose deadpan humour is unmissable.Like most Ramazan shows, the supporting cast of quirky but lovable personalities are essential to the spirit of the show. Amar is fantastic as Heer, funny, tough, determined and somehow vulnerable too. The show also debuts Scottish Pakistani YouTube star Rahim Pardesi (Mohammad Amer) whose hilarious face-off with Hero Butt is the stuff of legend. Despite the simple setting, efforts have been made to keep up the production values, and the wardrobe and lighting giving us a very watchable show..-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I didn't refer to the coverage in Dawn as churnalism or even classified it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The coverage was in Daily Times, and Dawn's coverage alone is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah, OK! Thanks for clarifying. Still, I don't think you can call it "ROTM" (which you do, unless I misunderstood that part too). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Mushy Yank, But GNG require strong sourcing, something which are unlikely to be challenged or questioned, IMO. — Saqib (talk) 20:53, 13 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!} 22:56, 9 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!} 21:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Daily Times article is clearly marked as "Staff Report", so it is reliable - it is not a web desk report. 2A01:E0A:C39:5CB0:AC70:C0B4:482D:B6E8 (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- IP - WP:RSNOI clearly states even legitimate Indian (as well Pakistani) news organizations intermingle regular news with sponsored content and press release–based write-ups, often with inadequate or no disclosure. Paid news is a highly pervasive and deeply integrated practice within Indian (as well Pakistani) news media so requires extra vigilance. And Daily Times is known for publishing CHURNALISM styled articles as evident in the PROMO tone used. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This page was created by 182.182.100.177 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and edited by 39.34.171.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Avadh990 -- all blocked for UPE sock farming.Saqib (talk I contribs) 22:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on existing sources now rather than the editor or IP who started the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Liz, I had to comment this because some IPs are casting "keep" votes, potentially linked to a UPE sock farms. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage as one can confirm at

https://www.24newshd.tv/3-May-2023/nadia-khan-gets-crazy-as-mad-over-drama-serial-heer-da-hero https://tribune.com.pk/story/2407480/ramazan-binge-list-five-shows-to-keep-you-entertained-post-iftar https://dailytimes.com.pk/1079637/amar-thanks-the-audience-for-loving-the-alpha-hero-she-has-penned-in-her-serial-heer-da-hero/ https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/30-Mar-2023/amar-khan-s-punglish-skills-in-heer-da-hero-impresses-fans https://www.independenturdu.com/node/133401 https://jang.com.pk/news/1211032 https://www.aaj.tv/news/30323593 https://lahorenews.tv/index.php/news/61302/ https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1199328 https://www.easterneye.biz/amar-khan-being-her-own-hero/ Libraa2019 (talk) 20:13, 23 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN personalities

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

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This subject is discussed as a group in secondary sources such as [[11]], [[12]], [[13]] and [[14]] just for starters. I'd say this meets the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 15:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Let'srun. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references provided by LetsRun which show passage of NLIST. Frank Anchor 18:59, 21 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPN Radio personalities

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

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The personalities for ESPN radio are discussed in a multitide of sources, such as [[15]], [[16]], [[17]], and [[18]]. I'd say this meets the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These links falls under WP:ROUTINE, more like another announcments of lineups. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:04, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure the nom did a proper WP:BEFORE search because from what I'm seeing this seems to pass WP:NLIST based on some searching. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per references provided by LetsRun which show passage of NLIST. Frank Anchor 19:00, 21 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. Looks like a consensus to Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of past ESPN personalities

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

Not just it is entirely unsourced, this does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Definitely useful as a category than being a standalone list. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This group has been covered in secondary sources, such as [[19]], [[20]] and [[21]]. Let'srun (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News articles of 'personalities' being laid off, just a small selection of this list. Doesn't have much relations with it though. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not the entire grouping needs to be covered for WP:NLIST to be met. If you want a wider selection covered, there is [[22]]. Let'srun (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not forgetting alls under WP:ROUTINE. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of ESPN personalities. I agree with Let'srun that there are indeed sources to attribute to this, but the past can merge with the main article. No need to fork it. Conyo14 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Let'srun. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 5 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!} 22:58, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Agree on keeping, the topic has received coverage in secondary sources. Waqar💬 17:25, 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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEEE-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The station was Knoxville's UPN affiliate in the early 2000s and got some significant coverage in that era. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:36, 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!} 07:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources added by Sammi give the subject WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:49, 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 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 06:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WFEM-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:48, 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!} 03:11, 9 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 06:39, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WVTN-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 19:31, 7 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!} 03:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Unnotable. Danubeball (talk) 01:30, 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 redirect‎ to Baalveer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baalveer Returns

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

Can't see it passes WP: GNG. All available sourcing are just about the actors. Proposing MERGE to Baalveer or DELETE. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The article "Baalveer Returns" has been supported by many reliable sources, including Mid Day, The Tribune India, Aaj Tak, Abp news and The Times of India as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources It seems like Twinkle1990 has a personal enmity with Baalveer, so they are trying to delete all Balveer- related articles.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Baalveer. Same here like Baalveer 3 and Baalveer 4 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) 21:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baalveer. Since the article is not passing, WP: GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please sign all comments in AFD discussions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baalveer, as was done for part III and IV, if I am not mistaken.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:03, 11 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!} 05:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SagamoreHill Broadcasting

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP because of a lack of in-depth coverage. PROD was contested so bringing it to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Georgia (U.S. state). Let'srun (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: While I am unable to find indepth articles specifically about SagamoreHill Broadcasting, I did see plenty of articles that mention the company and articles about the stations it owns. Hkkingg (talk) 07:12, 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!} 03:32, 8 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!} 04:02, 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 Hum TV without prejudice against selective merge of sourced, encyclopedic content. Owen× ☎ 18:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST and is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It has not "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as references verify the shows but do not talk about the group as a whole. There are nine current programs that are sourced which can easily be placed in the Hum TV page if necessary. History of the page also shows this has been the target of socks and COI since 2017 from Hum TV. While not a reason to delete, the list only stands to promote the station. CNMall41 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Asia, Pakistan, Middle East, Europe, and United States of America. CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: detailed article about a notable network: see WP:SPLITLIST. If a merge into the main article was an improvement, I would not be opposed but it would be an issue. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a detailed article unfortunately. It is a list. If it is a problem to merge per SPLITLIST, then a redirect would work. However, it would need to be notable per NLIST to have a standalone page. I looked and could not find reliable sources that talk about the list as a grouping but I have been proven wrong before if someone can provide those sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article. The subject is obviously a subtopic of Hum TV, it would be difficult to argue otherwise. See Template Main list (which uses the word Main where "Detailed" is to be understood). See also the template For Timeline, similar. If you want to redirect and merge, sure, if all agree and size is not an issue; but this type of page is pretty standard, though, by the way. Look at the categories and the pages they contain....

For sources, you have for example, https://internationalrasd.org/journals/index.php/pjhss/article/download/1259/936/9962 ; or see Forging the Ideal Educated Girl: The Production of Desirable Subjects in Muslim South Asia (2018). But I consider WP:SPLITLIST to be the applicable section of the guideline and the fact that it's a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks should imv encourage us to keep that list. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I would tend to believe that, whenever the list format is appropriate, a list can be a detailed page on any given subject mentioned briefly in a section of another article" - I like that thinking and generally it seems acceptable on its face. The problem is that the list must meet notability guidelines. If not, then it should stay mentioned briefly on the notable network page. Here there are only nine programs and they do not all appear to be original programs, just current programming. I do like "a pretty standard approach to programs of notable networks" as you mentioned above. They can easily be covered by the category as opposed to standalone list (for those that are "original programmin" - the rest are just TV Guide listings) in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are redirected to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but at the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66's comment during a recent Afd: "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." I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to the page are a concern but they should not have bearing on notability. Unfortunately, I think a lot of the programs may not meet notability guidelines but do not want to do a mass deletion. Maybe someone can take up the task and redirect them to the main station page. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NLIST applies without any special exception and that in general lists of programs, where needed, can be handled within the article about the channel, and don't generally merit a stand-alone list article, unless such a list would pass the scrutiny per WP:NLIST. WP is not a WP:NOTDIRECTORY nor WP:NOTTVGUIDE —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hum TV as WP:ATD. 2A00:23C6:139B:A101:78CA:7B5:3148:9172 (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : I suggest to Keep the Article. As it a large number of notable program's are listed on it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 (talk • contribs) The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments to avoid: WP:NOTINHERITED. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: "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." (emphasis mine). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, But isn't this IP evading their block? They are blocked @223.123.5.217 (talk · contribs · 223.123.5.217 WHOIS) (for organized sock farms/UPE) and using the same IP range, just a few kilometers apart. — Saqib (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't know anything about that, sorry. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The only difference between this list and how other station programmings are done, is that usually the list of programming is a separate section at the bottom of the article for the station itself. In this case, they simply separated the list of programming into its own article. — Maile (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I am wondering is if there are sources that talk about this list as a group? Otherwise, it is a TVGUIDE listing and does not meet WP:NLIST. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your replies. To be honest I don't even understand how TVGUIDE applies here (nor to most of the lists mentioned above in Maile66's quote): "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." As for sources on Hum Tv programs as a set, see my reply above. And as for WP:NLIST, it is a guideline, sure, but so is WP:SPLITLIST that imv applies to all these lists of programs of notable networks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mushy Yank, I'd like to ask does this list have WP:Inherent notability or even WP:Immunity ? You referred to WP:SPLITLIST, which leads to WP:STANDALONE, and there I see WP:LISTCRITERIA which clearly states that WP is an encyclopedia, not a directory or a repository of links. so I fail to understand why we should maintain lists of program broadcast by every channel, if they fails to meet GNG. Isn't this clearly violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY as well WP:NLIST ? — Saqib (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've explained my thoughts above on each and every of those points. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete, per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I would not be terribly opposed to a merge to Hum TV, which is a surprisingly short article such that it makes no sense to split content from it, but only about a quarter of the entries on this lengthy list are actually sourced at all. A lot of cleanup is therefore needed, and if any of this is to be kept, that would probably best be accomplished in a merged parent article. BD2412 T 00:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge per BD2412 or keep as it is and start an WP:RFC on how to deal with such navigation lists per WP:LISTPURP-NAV. They serve the purpose which is to help reader find related article at one place. 2400:ADC7:5103:3600:105B:194D:C272:BFC1 (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think regardless of outcome, that would be a good discussion to have as there are several more lists that I do not see meeting guidelines under WP:NLIST. However, it would be disruptive to simply recommend them for deletion in batch. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:29, 20 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 ESPNU. No participation in the past 7 days changes the outcome determined by the previous closer, Star Mississippi. I see no reason to contradict their decision last week. I don't think additional relistings would help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPNU personalities

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

This group does not have the requisite coverage in secondary sources as a group to meet the criteria established by WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ESPNU as an WP:ATD. It serves as a WP:NAVIGATION, but there are no grouping sources for satisfying WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 18:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to ESPNews per WP:ATD. A list that is useful being a category but not as a list, which is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and fails verification; a spot-check of articles linked (Joe Davis (sportscaster), Mike Crispino, Andy Katz) shows none of them mention ESPNU, just ESPN in general. The concept of being an "ESPNU personality" (separate from other ESPN brands) does not appear to exist. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I believe there was a consensus for a merge as a viable ATD, but nom's request for a relist is reasonable, so I have done so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:43, 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 merge‎ to ESPNews. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:42, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ESPNews personalities

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

Subject does not meet the WP:LISTN as this grouping isn't discussed in non-primary sources. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ESPNews. There are no grouping sources on the subject, but the WP:NAVIGATION purposes are still there, so the ATD is better at the main. Conyo14 (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to ESPNews per WP:ATD. A list that is useful being a category but not as a list, which is entirely unsourced. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of SportsCenter anchors and reporters; unsourced and the target articles generally describe people as SportsCenter hosts rather than being specifically associated with ESPNews. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two different Merge target articles suggested here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the function of categories, not articles. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd prefer to Merge or Redirect this article given the current status of the discussion but folks haven't settled on a target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ESPNews Article is frozen in time from 2014 when all original programming it carried was phased out, and ESPNews and SportsCenter up to 2014 were generally completely different in tone and direction. Nate • (chatter) 17:22, 14 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 WXXA-TV. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WEDG-TV

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:52, 30 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) 16:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WXXA-TV: it is mentioned there, as this was a cable-only UPN affiliate that was a joint venture between WXXA and Time Warner Cable. That partnership was basically another one of those "digital subchannels before digital subchannels were much of a thing" deals, and while I'm certain "WEDG"/"UPN4" did get some coverage that does not necessarily mean separate notability (or even the need for a separate page). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with WNYA Like many other WB+ cable stations that went to The CW Plus and digital subchannels in 2006 and beyond, this is effectively the same thing, only involving UPN locally; started life as WEDG on cable, then for all intents and purposes outside the syndication contracts transferred to WXXA, the most important thing in UPN moved over-the-air to channel 51, along with its existing cable 4 position. Nate • (chatter) 21:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with WNYA would be the best solution. TH1980 (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just relisting to be sure about Merge target article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with WXXA-TV, which actually operated this channel. (The WNYA article certainly would have to include a mention of this one, but it is operationally unrelated.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the WXXA-TV article and/or WNYA: It sounds kinda self-explanatory in its self. WXXA had UPN as an secondary affiliation from 1995 when UPN signed on for the first time to 1998 when they signed primary O&O PAX-TV station WYPX-TV as an secondary affiliate and WVBG-LD as the primary affiliate on air. (On cable, WSBK in Boston or WWOR in Secaucus, NJ–New York City, NY, depending on the cable provider.) WXXA operated that cable-only station WEDG from 2000 until 2003 when WNYA grabbed the UPN affiliation. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 06:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with WXXA, WXXA is the operator, and WEDG on its own can’t be notable. Danubeball (talk) 01:28, 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 no consensus‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Télé Lyon Métropole

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

insufficient notability or coverage in reliable sources. Additionally, it may lack independent, third-party references to establish its significance in the context of television broadcasting. Welcome to Pandora (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One would expect a TV station reaching 1.3 million inhabitants fulfills WP:GNG and it does. The French Wikipedia article shows an abundance of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. I agree the article needs to be updated and better sourced (the TV station seemingly does not exist anymore), but WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Broc (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that BFM Lyon Métropole is the rebrand/successor of this station [23]. There is no sourced content in the (English) article; the article should not be kept in its current form. A redirect (to BFM TV) might be better than trying to fix this article. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:13, 4 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!} 21:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BFM Régions, where we learn that Télé Lyon Métropole was bought out by BFM, and rebranded as "BFM Lyon Métropole" then "BFM Lyon" as part of the BFM Régions network. In an ideal world the article could be kept and expanded from the frwiki article (which itself is way out of date), but realistically that isn't going to happen for a defunct local channel. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:19, 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 no consensus‎. Arguments to keep are weak, given that the sources are fairly routine in my view. That said, there is not consensus to delete the article, perhaps due to a lack of participation. Malinaccier (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Venery of Samantha Bird

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

I would argue that this fails the notability criteria: since the article is based on routine press coverage, and there's not much more mentions in reliable sources after the show did not move forward in September 2023. Maybe the specific guideline is WP:NOTNEWS, but I've seen most unaired television/film articles that do not have extensive coverage beyond cancellation be draftified, so maybe draftifying is the best option? I'm open to other options, though. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:16, 27 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. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:16, 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!} 07:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes — multiple instances of published, significant coverage about the subject in sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but it's all routine press coverage, no sources show that the cancelled series is notable after its cancellation. Not all cancelled series/films with routine press coverage are notable, and if it is, might as well make pages for the 200+ series and films that have been cancelled. Spinixster (trout me!) 00:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: coverage seems sufficient to have a page (with notable cast, production history, premise verified). If really there's no consensus about that being enough, then redirect to Starz and add a line there with a few of the sources from this article (but I think it's not necessary and personally find it would be a pity). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:04, 11 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 Mercer University#Student life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMUB-LD

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

Fails WP:GNG; questionable sourcing. Merge with Mercer University#Student life. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 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!} 01:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, but I wouldn’t be opposed to a merger. These sources seem to be directly about WMUB-LD, and not just “Look guys! [Network] signed deals with a list of stations that include WMUB!” more “Hey look, WMUB-LD and [Network] have signed a deal.” Though its lack is enough for me to say it’s weak at best. Danubeball (talk) 01:26, 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 redirect‎ to Gul Panag. Based on minimal participation, the article can be recreated, see WP:SOFTDELETE. Malinaccier (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Off Road with Gul Panag

(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 14:57, 25 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. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:57, 25 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!} 07:30, 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!} 06:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gul Panag: as ATD. A line can be added there with a source. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:58, 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 no consensus‎. Malinaccier (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satja Nai Chum Joan (Suea Sung Fah III)

(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 14:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looking up สัจจะในชุมโจร turns up lots of coverage (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), though as is usual for entertainment news, a lot of it is based on supplied PR material. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:36, 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!} 07:29, 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!} 06:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First part has a page, 2nd part too, so, coverage allowing verification, I'm in favour of Keeping this as a short (detailed) article. If the identified coverage is judged insufficiently independent, Redirect to Suea Sung Fah. Opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:21, 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Star Hill Ponies

(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 14:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, United Kingdom, and Wales. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a newspaper article called "Trotting towards stardom" in the South Wales Evening Post, April 1999, and one called "Titanic tricks for TV puppets" in the Western Daily Press, April 1999. Toughpigs (talk) 17:40, 25 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!} 07:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, given what was presented here and on the page (thanks Toughpigs) or at the very least Redirect to Bumper Films, if the said sources are really found insufficient. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw, based on citations noted by Toughpigs. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:02, 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!} 02:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBON-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:54, 25 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!} 01:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on additions made since nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Seems the article has improved enough to justify keeping it in. --Danubeball (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Desperately seeking participants..... (80s reference)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lacking independent sourcing. Within the citations I see sourcing to the station itself, FCC registrations, and accessibility listings. As of this writing the two independent sources that mention the station just do so in passing: an obit piece for a former news anchor and one mentioning the sale of the station. The article has been around in at least stub form since 2006 so this seems to have just flown under the radar not to have been nominated for AfD long ago.Blue Riband► 19:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. This diff demonstrates considerable progress on adding reliable sources to this article. I don't see that contributor making assertion here. I make my assertion, not on that contributor's behalf, but because of the several reliable sources quietly applied. BusterD (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The London Sentinel-Echo article looks like multiple paragraphs of significant, independent coverage. The WMYT article isn't great as it mainly focuses on the founder, but it does delve into the station a bit. I'd say this is a relatively weak pass under WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Let'srun (talk) 02:16, 22 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 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 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 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 [24] [25] [26], [27]. 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 [28]—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 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 [[29]] (1/3), [[30]] (2/3), [[31]] (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. 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 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.

Other XfDs

Television proposed deletions

[piper-1] Sawyer, Sam (February 15, 2020). "SALEM Animated Series Creator Sam Sawyer, Cryptids, Nonbinary & Witchcraft". Piper's Picks TV (Online). Interviewed by Piper Reese. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020. YouTube video of interview here

[incon2020-2] "Exclusive S.A.L.E.M sneak peek". Inconceivable Events. November 13, 2020. Archived from the original on 19 September 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2021.

[3] Johnson, Bill (February 4, 2020). "Artist Sam Sawyer to LVL UP Expo". Las Vegas, NV Patch. Archived from the original on December 12, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.

[4] Sawyer, Sam (December 18, 2019). "Artist Sam Sawyer Creates First Animated Series with Non-Binary Hero". Starshine Magazine (Online). Interviewed by Sandy Lo. Archived from the original on November 18, 2020. Retrieved December 12, 2020.

[5] "Праздничный выпуск, музыкальное поздравление в исполнении юных звёзд и много подарков — мультсериалу «Енотки» 3 года". re-port.ru. Retrieved 2024-06-08.

[6] "Мультсериал «Енотки» – детские мультфильмы на канале Карусель". www.karusel-tv.ru (in Russian). Retrieved 2024-06-08.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 == Television ==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland Brown Jr. (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Inspector_Chingum}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S.A.L.E.M.:_The_Secret_Archive_of_Legends,_Enchantments,_and_Monsters}}