Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:52, 23 June 2010

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

{{{linktext}}}

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 merge to List of The Unit characters. T. Canens (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Blane

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

Minor character in The Unit, not enough for a separate article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. There is no real need to be here... Hobit (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hobit. So little content, we can probably keep all of it. --GRuban (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question With which article should it be merged? Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good question. I'd say a characters of "The Unit" page should be created. The one list on the main page isn't enough IMO. But for now, to the main article...Hobit (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have just created a very basic List of The Unit characters, so merge to that.--Beloved Freak 00:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge can't find anything significant in terms of sources. Merge to list seems reasonable. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Hobit, GRuban, etc. Jclemens (talk) 03:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The Unit characters per above. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:40, 28 June 2010 (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 The Unit characters. T. Canens (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Ryan

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

Minor character in The Unit, not enough for a separate article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ can find no real world significant coverage in reliable sources or anything else that demonstrates notability. Delete as there appears to be no list of characters to merge or redirect to.--Beloved Freak 18:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of The Unit characters. --Beloved Freak 00:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge--just because a "list of [minor] chracters" article doesn't yet exist doesn't mean this isn't an appropriate target to merge non-notable fictional elements into. By the "doesn't exist yet" logic, each minor character could be nominated in turn and deleted--that's not an outcome that makes sense or serves our readers. Jclemens (talk) 07:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that merge would be the better option and if someone creates the article, that's what I would advocate. Don't see how to merge into nothing though.--Beloved Freak 08:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with above, but think it should be a Keep until it can be merged. Sf46 (talk)

Merge into the List per Bf. No separate sources, not much information. --GRuban (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge can't find anything significant in terms of sources. Merge to list seems reasonable. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The Unit characters per above. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:42, 28 June 2010 (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 The Unit characters. T. Canens (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffy Gerhardt

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

Minor character in The Unit, not enough for a separate article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Although lots of passing mentions in google/gnews, I can see no significant coverage in reliable sources, nothing to indicate that the character meets notability guidelines. Since there appears to be no appropriate list of characters to merge or redirect to, delete.--Beloved Freak 18:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of The Unit characters.--Beloved Freak 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per same reasons as listed in deletion request for another character of the smae tv show: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Ryan. Sf46 (talk)

Merge into the List per Bf. No separate sources, not much information. --GRuban (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge can't find anything significant in terms of sources. Merge to list seems reasonable. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of The Unit characters - no notability. Claritas § 15:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of The Unit characters per above. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:41, 28 June 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TVNZ8

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

There is no such channel, possibly the writer confused this with TVNZ 7 as the description matches that of TVNZ7 Bhowden (talk) 12:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can not find any evidence that such a station exists under that name. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't exist. Joe Chill (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2010 (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. JForget 23:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Newlygreens

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

TV show, podcast and website. Lots of references but which ones demonstrate notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails WP:GNG, no secondary reliable sources [1]. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Under their "original" name Green By Design, there does seem to be coverage of the show and website.[2]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 11:08, 2 July 2010 (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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Matvick

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

Notability. A few sources (I've two, several passing mentions (see Google News in particular). Certainly enough to establish a few lines of job history. But none of the sources I've seen "address the subject directly in detail", to quote WP:NOTE. I think I was trying to be too pedantic about WP:NOTE, and wish to withdraw the nomination. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (added by nom): The ESPN source is arguable, I guess I feel it's iffy (not really secondary, promotional in context). --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of more-than-trivial coverage in many reliable sources from 2002 throu 2010[3] would seem to poke nicely at WP:GNG... and adding them to the article might seem a surmountable issue. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the comment said above, this sportscaster has significant amount of coverage and therefore should be considered notable. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 01:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I'm reviewing my nomination based on the comments, etc., by Michael Q, Parent5446. I have been through, as I believe I did before, the text of every readable article in that search on the first page and well into the second--I did do searches on Gnews, Gweb, Goobs before. In reviewing these results so far, I haven't found an entry yet that did more than identify the subjects job title. Perhaps I'm being blind, and if so I apologize, would either of you be willing to point me at two articles ("signficant coverage") which provide more than a sentence worth of information ("address the subject directly in detail")? Or even one, not counting the ESPN bio I mentioned in the original nom? --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Took a deep breath, reviewed the sources more. I think I was being too pedantic about WP:NOTE. Thanks for your patience, folks. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my own observations above. As I commented about surmountable issues, and with a grateful nod to the nominator's courteous withdrawal, this one is now on my personal list of articles that I will improve in the next day or so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for being willing to improve the article! --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some expansion and got his awards sourced. More to do... more to do. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this just goes to show that the article can be cleaned up and should not be deleted. This AfD should probably be speedily kept, as not even the nominator is in favor of delete anymore. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 21:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed (as nom), as an "involved party" it's inappropriate for me to do it, I believe. I believe even non-admins can close an entirely non-controversial speedy keep, however, as per WP:SK. --j⚛e decker ^talk 22:00, 26 June 2010 (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. Shimeru 21:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Akdeniz

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

fails WP:ENT, has had 1 role on a TV series, and it is questionable whether being a participant in a games show counts as signficant other role. no real coverage in gnews either [4]. LibStar (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 5 episodes on one notable show, and 27 on another notable show, are both significant. After seeing your comments on [5] I'm certain you are going to go around nominating one entertainment article after another, based on your interpretations of that suggested guideline. Perhaps you could wait for more input from others, before doing any large scale deletion attempt. Dream Focus 05:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more input from others in this AfD has been received below and noted so far majority supporting delete. thanks. LibStar (talk) 05:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Dream Focus 05:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you are obviously following me around, suggest you cease. LibStar (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

funny that Dream Focus, 2 votes below don't agree with your interpretation of the guideline. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the AFD, not other editors. Dream Focus 06:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:KETTLE. LibStar (talk) 06:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Just read my earlier comment. I should've placed that on your talk page, not here. Dream Focus 06:39, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to AfD note - You both are not new, and I think you both known each other's predilections at AfD. Perhaps this recent wikihounding thread on Dream Focus's talk page could compel both of you to either seek some outside help or maybe abstain from AfD issues until that issue's concluded. I don't want any debate to spill over here, but just so there's context for everyone else, and some indication to you two that others have noticed this issue. Shadowjams (talk) 06:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad others have noticed if anything. LibStar (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Personal dispute above notwithstanding, I am unable to find significant coverage for this actor sufficient to found a meaningful encyclopedic article. Without such coverage, whether or not he passes WP:N, it is not possible to write a verifiable encyclopedic article on the topic. No prejudice against recreation, possibly after Tomorrow When The War Began is released and more coverage is (presumably) generated. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not he passes WP:N is what is important, not whether you personally feel it will be a meaningful article. Proper sourcing is a fixable problem. See WP:ATD.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Acting on a series only designed to fill time between shows is not only superfluous, but it might as well be classified on the level of an actor on a regular 30-second ad (and in only a few select cases do we have commercial actors having articles here). Only two other actors from the series have articles because they have had established acting histories, while this individual has not. Also I will probably say the Disney Channel Games "role" is in high probability incorrect, as his version of the series aired only on Disney's Australia and New Zealand networks, and the Disney Channel Games has exclusively American and Canadian actors from their US channel's series and it does not show up on his IMDb page. Nate • (chatter) 00:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DustFromWords and Nate. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources found to establish notability. Even if the article technically passes WP:ENT (which is tenuous, at best), it still fails WP:GNG and WP:N. SnottyWong ^squeal 23:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per SnottyWong, this article's claim to meet WP:ENT is unconvincing. Reyk _YO! 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to As the Bell Rings. Fails WP:ENT as he has not had significant roles in two productions. We'll likely be recreating this once Tomorrow, When the War Began (film) is released though. - BalthCat (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete or merge: fails notability guidelines and could not find sources. not appropriate for a stand alone article but seems like it could have a suitable merge or redirect target... Arskwad (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2010 (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 Real Chance of Love (season 1). –MuZemike 00:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Givens

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

This bio is entirely unsourced. A search in GoogleNews comes up with nothing, which indicates that perhaps this article should be deleted. Pink Bull 04:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep he and his brother appeared on several reality television programs and were even the subject of their own show, which aired for two seasons. The news link above does return results. If it is decided that there isn't enough material for an individual article, then I would suggest redirecting the page to Real Chance of Love, and merging the most important information there. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the Google News results. The regular Google News search turns up nothing.[6] I can't explain the discrepancy. Regardless, five positive results alone do not establish notability, in my opinion.--Pink Bull 16:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reality show contestants are non encyclopedic. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are reliable sources and I see no reason why to delete this interesting article. --Rirunmot 00:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Delete - notability not established at this time, sources are blogs and short blurbs, hard to see how the article will get better unless he becomes better known. Seaphoto^Talk 04:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- This article is highly connected to the article "Real Chance of Love (season 1)", which has good reliable sources. L. E. Evans (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2010 (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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

Other XfDs

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 2#Television personalities by century

Proposed deletions

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deniz Akdeniz}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmad Givens}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davin Wood}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Bickford}}