Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:01, 26 April 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.

Note that 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 links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Television.

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

List of Czech First League broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, not a single source. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Czech Republic. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Czech First League as WP:ATD. Clara A. Djalim (talk) 13:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC) 09:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Czech First League#Media coverage. FromCzech (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. How do "Delete" voters think about the possibility of a Redirect or Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:47, 11 May 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 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!} 01:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Swiss Super League broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Switzerland. SpacedFarmer (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Super League broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are archived pages of primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and India. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nemzeti Bajnokság I broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Not a single source in any shape or form. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Hungary. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - similar case to List of Serie A broadcasters and List of Bundesliga broadcasters. No justification for a stand-alone article here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Europa League broadcasters

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to coverages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Europe. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Not a TV guide. Govvy (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Additional information has been added that may help determine notability.--Claudio Fernag (talk) 05:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy in an article itself but we don't need a broadcasting list so you can watch in whoever country. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:07, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Super Cup broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to coverages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Europe. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 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!} 08:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Algerian Ligue Professionnelle 1 broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Contextes are there to claim 'channel x' brought out the right to voerages in 'country x', not to assert notability. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Algeria. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bundesliga broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Germany. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 12:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of La Liga broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. No context to assert notability either. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Spain. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Not a tv guide.. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant information and sources have been added that give it notability.[1], [2], [3]--Claudio Fernag (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy in an article itself but we don't need a broadcasting list so you can watch in whoever country. SpacedFarmer (talk) 06:45, 3 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!} 07:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sourcing found by Claudio Fernag. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTCRUFT also applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a reminder, that page is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant and comprehensive information with references and sources.Puente aereo (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant and necessary article, its sources are the best PIKACHUNESS (talk) 18:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more policy-based discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources provided above fall under WP:ROUTINE and are not effective to complete WP:LISTN. This is a trivial list and does not withstand the WP:SIGCOV to remain as an article. Conyo14 (talk) 17:07, 10 May 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 delete‎. Any editor is free to create a Redirect from this page title. I seem to get taken to DRV when I close discussions like this to Redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serie A broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. No context to assert notability. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Italy. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: At the similar AfD for Copa Sudamericana broadcasters, you !voted Redirect rather than Delete. Do you think a redirect isn't a viable alternative to deletion in this case? IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opposition to a redirect. Giant Snowman 13:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Serie A#Television rights (a section which could be renamed to "Media coverage"). Absent media coverage about the list as a topic, I agree that I don't think this is a list within Wikipedia's scope that is therefore worth preserving per WP:NOT, but the topic does merit some encyclopedic coverage in the context of Serie A, and it is a reasonable redirect as an alternative to deletion. I do not think there is anything worth merging, though preserving the page history allows an interested editor to do so if they disagree. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 13:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a TV guide. Govvy (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no objection to a cheap consensus redirect to Serie A#Television rights, but don't find it useful. // Timothy :: talk 07:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Süper Lig broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only source are nothing but news announcement and does not assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, Lists, and Turkey. SpacedFarmer (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NLIST, fails NOTTVGUIDE, fails CLN. Listcruft. // Timothy :: talk 12:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not a TV guide. Govvy (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, and NOTTVGUIDE Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I think the NACTOR debate has been reasonably addressed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Metzger

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

This is a non notable voice actor. The article doesn't even meet WP:THREE. The only source I see is for a convention that sources one of her works.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Theatre, Comics and animation, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following more topics: Anime and manga, and Video games. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Delete: Could find no sources to establish notability. Esw01407 (talk) 16:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, the notability test for actors and actresses is not automatically passed just by listing roles, and requires the provision of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about her and her roles, but none is present here and I've had about as much luck as the above commenters at finding anything better. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails per WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, and WP:THREE. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject specific guideline for voice actors has been met. WP:NACTOR states: The person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3045630/ She played one of the three Power Puff girls in all 52 episodes of Powerpuff Girls Z. She played Nya in Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu for 100 episodes. Wikipedia:Notability clearly states "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)". You don't have to do both. Also those linking to WP:THREE, kindly ready the personal essay you are linking to, it states don't list more than three sources in an AFD or no one will bother looking them over. Dream Focus 12:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for actors isn't passed just by having acting roles. Having acting roles is literally an actor's job description, so by definition every actor has had acting roles or else they wouldn't be an actor — which in turn means that if simply having acting roles were an instant notability freebie in and of itself, then every actor who exists at all would get that freebie and no actor could ever be non-notable at all anymore.
The notability test for actors is passed by having WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them and their performances. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they had GNG coverage then they'd pass the GNG and the subject specific guidelines wouldn't need to exist. Some are notable based on their accomplishments alone, others are notable because they got coverage by the media. More than one way to prove notability exist. Dream Focus 09:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ Subject played a significant role in all episodes of one notable work (PPGZ), voiced a primary character in the English version of all episodes of Tara Duncan (TV series), and played one character over 200 times in various iterations of Ninjago. By my reading, this is a clear pass of NACTOR, even for a voice or translation actor. User:Dream Focus and I often disagree, but we agree here WP:THREE is an essay with no relevance to this discussion, and the subject meets the SNG with lots of significant (even repeating) roles in their field. It's a BLP, so I'd like reliable sources about the person, but WP:ENT is met, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SNGs still require reliable source referencing to properly verify their passage, so claiming to pass an SNG is not in and of itself an exemption from having to have GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I spent 30 minutes this morning trying to find a single RS on the subject, and the best I did was bare mentions. When I made my keep assertion, I failed to look for RS. There's an enormous amount of entertainment content out there on the subject, but none of it seems to come from sources which are reliable and have a reputation for journalism (or fact checking). While it is true the subject is abundantly verified, I've found nothing approaching direct detailing in RS, so I'm striking my keep assertion. I apologize to other participants in this process. BusterD (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over WP:NACTOR is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's had several significant roles but there is no coverage. Bold in following quotes is added for emphasis WP:Notability (people) (which includes WP:NACTOR) states: People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. WP:Notability states : Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia Even WP:NACTOR only says may be considered notable. Schazjmd (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that this article may be deleted, since "adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found". I added cite needed tags to request WP:RSs, but another editor deleted them, adding more WP:OR instead. If WP:OR is added again, such as the unreferenced assertion that she voiced x number of episodes, User:Schazjmd, it will convince me that the article ought to be deleted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not original research. WP:OR, under primary, states:

3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

So listing information listed in the credits of the primary source, is acceptable. So she voiced Buttercup, one of the three powerpuff girls in the show Powerpuff Girls Z, so was of course credited as being in every single episode. There was not a single episode that didn't have all three girls in it. And if you want to know what year the show was on, you can just click the link to the article for it, or if you want it in this article for some reason, you can just copy it from the primary source without problems. You don't need a secondary source for something no primary source would have any possible reason to lie about. Dream Focus 13:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are interpreting WP:OR too narrowly. You are not offering a listing by the publisher of all the episodes showing her name, you are asking the reader to synthesize each individual episode's credits (not easily accessible) to note that her name is listed, and then count up the number of such episodes. Again, if this sort of fancruft is re-added to the article without a WP:RS, it will emphasize the paucity of coverage for this person. Is there really not a single review mentioning any of her performances? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ultraman Blazar characters

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

It does not seem like the characters of this show are discussed in any reliable sources individually or as a group. This article uses primary sources exclusively, and I could not find any good sources in my BEFORE check. The one interwiki link also had little of use. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Japan. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that this needs to be created. Several character creations also show that all of those aren't reliable also and have been sourced primarily. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reject: This article wre under copyright law. Harimua Thailand (talk) 04:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UNO REVERSE. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 06:13, 26 April 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. Daniel (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colors Kannada Anubandha Awards

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are mainly mentions, NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. I can find references that verify its existence but that it about it. CNMall41 (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Awards, Entertainment, India, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 25 April 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 Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Richard Bellamy. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bellamy (Upstairs, Downstairs)

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

Unsourced since 2016, nothing found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find WP:SIGCOV via WP:BEFORE. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if not kept, the more appropriate merge target seems to be List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters as he is not mentioned at List of Upstairs Downstairs (2010 TV series) characters, and the text of the article supports this. On a brief look, it actually appears there's not much more at this article than the character list. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Richard Bellamy. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) characters#Richard Bellamy. Doesn't appear to be independently notable. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As pointed above. Doesn't meet GNG and lacks any sig cov whatsoever. X (talk) 23:48, 28 April 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!} 04:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabir Alasgarov

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

Reviewed during NPP, No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. The article says that he was a radio announcer. The on-line source had only a brief listing of him. Was not able to review the other 2 sources; they are off line Azerbaijani sources. (one appeared to be on line but that was just a link to a Wikipedia article about the source in general.) but content is indicative of them not being GNG sources. North8000 (talk) 02:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Television, Azerbaijan, and Georgia (country). Skynxnex (talk) 03:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. My very best wishes (talk) 00:43, 29 April 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. Sandstein 20:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Famille

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

Fails WP:GNG as it lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet it. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 17:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ivory Coast. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: While the article is insufficient currently, there is definitely notability, with several reliable sources in French: Le Monde, Le Point, analysis article on JSTOR, TV5Monde, rfi, La Libre Afrique, Jeune Afrique... and others which are perhaps less reliable / reputable Africine, IvoireBusiness, L'Infodrome, Pulse.ci, LeFaso, MediaCongo, AllAfrica. As someone with limited knowledge of African TV, I'm sure there are other, better sources, but this is really just from the first few pages of Google Search results. Shazback (talk) 19:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Shazback above. Orange sticker (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to Shazback's sources. The JSTOR result seems especially strong. Toughpigs (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to A-ha. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Ratcliff (producer)

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO, and I do not believe being a producer for a notable band is an automatic WP:NMUSIC pass either. I could not locate sources with substantial coverage of Ratcliff. All sources cover him only peripherally, as a producer for a-Ha. The article is now primarily an autobiography. Would accept a redirect to a-Ha as an alternative to deletion. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, and United Kingdom. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I not only re- produced the final masters of 8 of the tracks on a-ha’s 15 million selling first album Hunting High and Low but I also discovered them in 1983 and kept them, gave them £thousands and helped secure a record deal with Warners. I managed them under contract from 1983 to 1993 and without my financial and creative input they would have returned to Norway and never been heard of again! How dare you propose to delete this article. I have nearly completed my autobiography which inevitably contains the entire story of how I rescued them when they had no money left and put them in my recording studio for 2 years without any return for another 12 months. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Journalism, Television, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree that REDIRECT to a-Ha is appropriate. Most sources are primary references. The only third party references are more about a-Ha with this subject being mentioned tangentially. Otherwise, this article seems more promotional than anything else. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you presume! You know nothing. In 1983 a-ha came into my studio but ran out of money after 2 weeks. For the next 2 years I covered every housing cost., food cost and leisure costs out of my own pocket because I believed in their talent.I also let them have free studio time for 2 years during which we recorded and produced nearly all of the tracks on their first album. I became their manager in 1983 and their contract lasted with me until 1993!Their best 10 years to date. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I.will take legal action if you have the cheek to remove this article. My autobiography is almost finished detailing my entire 10 years managing the band and the consequences for both a-ha and myself. 200 million record sales for a start! If you want a copy of my management contract with a-ha just ask. I lost my house and marriage while supporting the band before their success. Buy my autobiography next year and you can read every detail. Nobody, nobody knows the ‘a-ha’ history better than I do. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Get your facts right. I discovered the band when they came into my studio and spent 2 weeks recording. I liked what I heard and when they ran out of time and money I supported them for 2 years before Take on Me became a bestseller.I was contractually their Manager from 1983 to 1993. I re-produced 8 out of 10 tracks on their first and most popular album Hunting high and Low. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are two decent sources on the article, both telling the story of the recording of "Take On Me": "Talking Away: A-Ha On The Making Of Take On Me" on The Quietus, and "Classic Tracks: A-ha 'Take On Me'" on Sound on Sound. There may be some claim to notability. However, the article subject badgering us and making legal threats on this deletion discussion makes it difficult for me to vote keep. Toughpigs (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not going to allow this article to remain then you are ignoring the truth of the matter. I thought the truth was a basic necessity of a site that should only provide fact.I am only writing as a matter of principle. My lawyers will only reveal their legal expertise. Buy the album…my name is all over the sleeve. More times than the band members themselves 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To toughpig. I don’t give a damn - oh sorry..is that blasphemy? In this day and age? I am in no way making threats! I am merely standing up for myself and the truth.Who is your superior? Put him/her on to it before I wake up my lawyer and we can sort this out legally and properly. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I now understand the reason for your username. Well I am tough too but my lawyer is tougher, and very expensive as you will discover should this minuscule matter not be resolved satisfactorily. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To tough pig. It says you have ‘2 decent sources’. What better ‘source’ could you have but myself. I discovered, produced and managed ‘a-ha’ for 10 years from 1983 to 1993. I think my knowledge of this entire matter is inevitably going to be seen as the most accurate. Your organisation obviously listens hardest to those names you recognise. You don’t realise that it’s the people behind the names who have a far greater knowledge and understanding for detail than you ever will. Change your username….or is it your real name? I do apologise. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will be very easy for me to find out who you really are. 217.137.18.193 (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
217.137.18.193, stop your threats. WP:NLT and WP:OUTING are policies here. You can vent, and you can argue for this article to be kept, but you can't harass people. Jfire (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read my opening statements from the top again. Johnratcliff (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not harassing anyone. I am merely pointing out that I am not ‘just’ their producer. I discovered them in 1983, kept, housed, fed and gave them my studio for 2 years,signed them to an extremely lucrative management contract for 5 years and then to a major deal with Warners. That is an awful lot more than ‘producing’ a track don’t you think? Johnratcliff (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was their manager from 1983 to 1993.I still get royalties!

Why am I having to justify facts that are common knowledge in my industry? Johnratcliff (talk) 04:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your opening statement and I believe you when you say you've done all those things for the band and were important to their success. But saying things like "I will take legal action if you have the cheek to remove this article", "My lawyers will only reveal their legal expertise", "before I wake up my lawyer and we can sort this out legally", and "It will be very easy for me to find out who you really are" is not okay here. You need to avoid making statements that can be construed as legal threats or threats to reveal someone's identity.

"Why am I having to justify facts that are common knowledge in my industry?" is a valid question. The answer is that one of the pillars of Wikipedia is that information here is verifiable: readers must be able to check that any information is not just made up. That means we can't rely on what's "common knowledge" in any industry unless it's been published in reliable sources somewhere. When your autobiography is published, we may be able to use it as a source in a-ha (depending on whether it is self-published or not). But we can't just rely on your own personal statements here, even if we believe them. Jfire (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if you feel I was harassing you. ‘a-ha’ is a very sensitive subject for me. I gave up my home and lost my wife and young child on account of my involvement with a-ha. So it is a passionate and sensitive subject.

I reiterate, I am very sorry to have upset you.

John Johnratcliff (talk) 04:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a-ha (with merging in of any useful information) pending publication of the autobiography referred to by the 217 IP (who appears to be the same person as Johnratcliff?). If it gets reviews in reliable sources, the article can then be reinstated based on those in addition to the few good sources currently present. Notability is borderline at present, since it can't be inherited from the band (and since our criterion for an independent page is notability, not admiration). The article is an under-referenced BLP and the last paragraph is stylistically inappropriate: "PS ... John". But it may be rewritable from sources a year from now. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, does not seem independently notable. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Yngvadottir. I removed a lot of recent COI additions that were entirely unsourced. Those should not be in a BLP. What remains are 4 sources that I will throw into a source analysis table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Sirfurboy
https://www.johnratcliff.com/john--a-ha	"In his own words". His own website. WP:SPS	? Reliable but self promotional		✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20220521024623/https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/ha-take-me		I believe it is. Didn't actually check.	He is mentioned in the source several times but there is no significant information about him	✘ No
https://thequietus.com/articles/18805-aha-hunting-high-and-low-take-on-me-review-anniversary			He is mentioned in the source several times but there is no significant information about him	✘ No
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/01727601			A primary source that says nothing about Ratcliffe in any case	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

However the redirect is reasonable as this is clearly someone who gets a mention regarding a-ha and is borderline notable. Although the above assessment covers what is in the page, there could be more secondary sources on him. However the name is quite common and searching is complicated by finding other notable Jonh Ratcliffes. I was not able to find any suitable coverage, but if multiple independent reliable secondary sources with sigificant coverage can be found, then, of course, this would be a notable subject for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a-ha: Not enough notability outside of a-ha to warrant an individual page. InDimensional (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a-ha. I haven't been able to find sources to support WP:GNG beyond those mentioned here, and none of those support a stand-alone article. Schazjmd (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a-ha I must admit the table really sold it to me Sansbarry (talk) 01:30, 30 April 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.

David Xanatos

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

Fails WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE shows that most of the sources were from the film, except this [4]. But, that is not enough for the character. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:19, 24 April 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. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 04:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic does not need to be the main subject to "count" with regard to notability. In my view, the mentioned Polygon article, this IGN article and the appearance in The Tropes of Fantasy Fiction, together with briefer appearances like here, establish enough material and commentary to fulfill the requirements of WP:WHYN and WP:ALLPLOT, and therefore establish notability. Daranios (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Despite the existence of a great Polygon article for SIGCOV, the character doesn't pass GNG with the demonstrated sources. A compromise would be merging him to a list of characters. The trope of Xanatos Gambit is purely a TVTropes thing and isn't super well-known outside of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm: If the trope of Xanatos Gambit is purely a TVTropes thing, then why does it appear in secondary sources, including academic ones? Daranios (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing and getting heavy discussion are two different things. But if the trope is indeed discussed heavily in scholarly sources, it might merit an article on the trope itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think it's "discussed heavyly", but it is discussed to some degree. Which again is different from being purely a TVTropes thing in my view. So I think it would be quite fitting to include the trope to a degree within the article here, which in turn means there is enough material to constitute a non-stubby article. Daranios (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting yet but concurring with Daranios here. If the concept is receiving actual discussion then it is a valid topic to cover in the article, regardless of potential origin. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep, per Daranios. DrBat (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 04:42, 8 May 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WJPW-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and West Virginia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have mostly rebroadcast other stations. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No separate notability from either of its parent stations, one of which was itself deleted as non-notable. Another remnant of how loose the inclusion "standards" were in this topic area in 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:03, 27 April 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 television stations in West Virginia#Low-power stations. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 02:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWVW-LD

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and West Virginia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Station never originated a moment of original programming whatsoever. Nate • (chatter) 18:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to List of television stations in West Virginia#Low-power stations: it is mentioned there, so an {{R to list entry}} is a relatively-valid alternative to deletion. Not completely opposed to deletion either, though; there is only so much one can say — or expect any significant coverage of — a low-power station only known to carry full-time national services. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSSS-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Ohio. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hard to imagine any significant coverage of a low-power station only known to have carried The Box and MTV2. A remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:09, 27 April 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. Daniel (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trés Hanley

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

Strong WP:COI vibes; the article creator has (mostly) only edited this article over a period of 14 years, also uploaded the two pictures as "own work" that are in the article. Sources are the subject's personal website and two sources that don't meet WP:RS. Lots of unsourced cruft. A search for more RS reveals lots of user-generated content, which fits the pattern. Fred Zepelin (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Television, Theatre, England, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've removed most of the cruft, including an uncited and frankly ridiculous assertion that she was the first American ever to play Polly in A Beggar's Opera. IBDB lists 7 productions on Broadway alone. Having gotten rid of all that, it appears that some of her roles were more than just bit parts, but if no one can find sufficient press coverage, she would not be considered Notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

The production was 1993 at London's Canazzaro Park. Miss Hanley did TV interviews in which it was stated several times that she was the first american to play the role. The Director was Peter Benedict. Many of the parks productions are not listed in IBDB even to this day. Yet they are listed with the West End summer limited run productions. PleeUK (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several parks productions - Holland Park, Regents and Cannazaro London summer theatre associated with the West End in the 90s. Which roles were bit parts? Care to be specific? If you watch any of the shows that she has been in they are all featured roles or principle roles. Is this a legit or personal attempt on her work? PleeUK (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions: (1) do you have reliable secondary sources to back up these statements? (2) Do you have a WP:COI with Hanley? I ask because most of your edits are to this article, and you seem to have a knowledge of her career that sources do not. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all her works are also verifiable on IMDB. There are various article that were online that may be dead links now. I have met her in the past twice. But cannot say I am a friend. I do find Wiki confusing and so If I did not do something correct I apologize. PleeUK (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say you "cannot say I am a friend" - but in this edit, you say "You are looking to delete my friends page." Let's continue this tangent on your talk page. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have said, I do not know her personally but I consider her a friend. I have followed her on social media and she is my friend there. You people here are very technical. Not all as familiar with the technical workings here.

You also make many false statements here saying her roles were bit parts when her name is on poster for movie mouth to mouth. And she has been lead or featured. Maybe you are experts on how to use wikipedia and I am not. I did apologize for it, but you do not have your facts on the actress correct. I was making an intervention on keep her page that's all. You do what you need to do. Thank you. PleeUK (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provide citations to the articles in your scrapbook, as described below and on your own Talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:PleeUK, Wikipedia does not accept IMDB as a WP:reliable source, because it is user-generated, so you need to cite reviews or articles from reputable publishers, like newspapers, about each production, show and film in which she appeared. You can't just say "she got press coverage" for something, you need to cite the exact article, author name, page number or URL, etc. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a scrap book with information but i cannot track it to the periodicals online today. This is from over 20 yrs ago not now all online. PleeUK (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be online. Here is how you can succeed: We need the name of the publication, the title and date of the article or book, the name of the author and the page number on which the information appeared. Post those things on the article's Talk page, and also type out the exact text from the article that verifies a statement made in Henley's article, so that I and other editors can see it, and if it does verify WP:NOTEWORTHY facts about her from a WP:RS, then I can add an appropriate cite to her Wikipedia entry. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You say IMDB is user generated but not all most of it is supplied from the tv or film compamies. You can watch the shows and see these actors in the roles. So how is this not legit? PleeUK (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On your talk page, Fred Zepelin has posted the answer to your question. But be assured that it is not an acceptable source, and you will not succeed by arguing about that. Instead, follow the procedure that I outlined for you above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC, no in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Mika1h (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Lette

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

Most of the coverage I found relates to her being married to cricketer Ed Cowan so WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Found no significant coverage of her or her career to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Music, and Radio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete –The article has been around for 15 years and yet is struggling to justify notability. Add content about her to her husband's page. Should she satisfy WP:GNG at a later date, cross this bridge then. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:41, 24 April 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!} 06:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Hum Europe

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

This is a simple listing without contextual information and falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE. The few references available are about individual programming and not the programming as a whole. Fails WP:NLIST. CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Pakistan, Europe, and United Kingdom. CNMall41 (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This channel seems to be an international service mostly consisting of Pakistani shows that are not specific to it. No original programming, no list. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm generally agree of it per WP:RS & WP:GNG for CNMall41 and Sammi Brie. Although the references are few, this is similar to Hum TV but this article is a broadcast coverage from Pakistan. Not original programming and no specific list occurs. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of original programming & WP:GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, including the lack of specific materials or sources per WP:SIGCOV. HurricaneErl 2022 (talk) 02:48, 29 April 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 14:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tayler Kane

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

Unreferenced article with an IMDb external link. Pre-wiki coverage was hard to find, even a cursory Google search today shows nothing. Although the actor seems to have played several minor roles in notable shows, there's no significant coverage of him that I could find. If printed sources exist, one may list them. X (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. X (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 22 April 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.

Jamie Draven

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

No significant in-depth coverage. All I could find were passing mentions (more or less like these 1, 2, 3, 4) and Wiki mirrors. Moreover, the article is unreferenced. X (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to fail WP:NACTOR. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This should not go without consensus, being a crummy unreferenced junk with only an IMDb link. At the very least it should be drafted if not deleted. X (talk) 03:13, 11 May 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mastrogiorgio

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor whose career has been a string of tiny roles and insignificant voice acting gigs. Fails WP:BIO. Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Theatre, Video games, Comics and animation, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Starring roles in My Italy Story, Rocky the Musical, and Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories. The reviews for My Italy Story seem to be only ones that mention his performance (Hartford Courant review the only one that isn't a permanent dead link: [5]). --Mika1h (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NBIO, I don't see any sources indicating significant coverage. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in North Carolina#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WNCR-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in North Carolina#LPTV stations: The article at least claims that there at least was some local programming (a newscast), but that statement has been there since the article's creation, and the only real "expansion" since then has been to the usual solely-database-sourced permastub of the type that is finally being rejected in this topic area. Maybe there's more significant coverage out there, but by and large this is another remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006 that no longer warrants anything more than an {{R to list entry}} as an alternative to deletion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 April 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 television stations in North Carolina#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHFL-CD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and North Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in North Carolina#LPTV stations: It isn't quite the type of all-national programming service so many LPTVs are, but I'm not convinced this likely-run-of-the-mill religious station has much significant coverage either. Likely a remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 28 April 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.

WGBS-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is some sourcing which I have added, all from the 1994–98 period. They were on local cable and got coverage from that. Once Cox dropped them, they really drop off in local coverage. I could go either way. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:31, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The new sources seem to be enough to say that it at the very least was notable enough in it’s early history to justify keeping it, but due to it being from a very specific point, I’m have to keep it at semi-weak. Danubeball (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it, I decided to say that this station probably does have the coverage to continue being on Wikipedia. Danubeball (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WBNM-LD

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG; another diginet coatrack. Could merge with sister station WBNA. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Might as well say that because couldn’t find any sources. --Danubeball (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject meets the WP:GNG with sources such as [[6]] and [[7]]. If the consensus is not to keep, I'd recommend a merge to WBNA. User:Let'srun 03:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 13:20, 11 May 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 keep‎. Closing as keep per HEY. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Green (Hollyoaks)

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

Lacking in sources since 2007, article only has two sources. One of the sources is WP:PRIMARY, so the article essentially has one source for proving notability. Nothing found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. (Oinkers42) (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hollyoaks characters; otherwise, this may clearly be Fandom territory. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 06:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Unless the reception is expanded and/or analysis section added, this is a clear WP:GNG failure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Noted Slgrandson and Piotrus' concerns - I will address them and work on the article.Rain the 1 10:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have made steady progress with the expansion so far. I have found a bunch of other sources from the archives that I will use to continue improving the article further over the coming days.Rain the 1 21:15, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:HEY. RT1 has worked hard in massively improving and sourcing the article. There is now in depth development and reception and multiple sources showing notability and in depth coverage. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that Raintheone has made significant improvements to the article. Keep per WP:HEY. Toughpigs (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As User:Toughpigs said above, significant improvements have been made and I think the article passes WP:GNG. – JuneGloom07 Talk 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have been working on the article since the nomination to address the concerns mentioned above. Given what I have added, the time of nomination vs now - I think there is enough sourced content for an article. There is real world content concerning casting, character creation, characterisation, plots with real world coverage, her role within the show is explained and reception has been added. Per WP:HEY it does not match the nominators reasons for deletion, it passes WP:GNG and I have used various sources meeting WP:SIGCOV. I feel keeping is the better decision here.Rain the 1 17:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:40, 27 April 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 04:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of communities served by Comcast

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

This list of every town in American that has Comcast cable does not belong on wikipedia per WP:NOTDIR, Furthermore, the list is incorrect and outdated and even if updated accurate information could be found, this still serves no encyclopedic purpose. Rusf10 (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Business, Internet, and United States of America. Rusf10 (talk) 04:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many many many companies on Wikipedia list their service area(s). Perhaps not to the level of the city/town licenses which is what actually grants Comcast its service area. i.e. One canneot get XFINITY outside of city/town licensed to allow offer it. But should a company's service area be listed on Wikipedia is the better question? Many banks list the states they're in as they're licensed on the state level. Verizon lists their FiOS area markets. Charter Communications lists its markets. The satellite providers which are all in the same sky list their service areas. Radio/TV stations list the area/markets they're licensed to serve. Mobile companies list the states they are licensed to operate in. There's LOTS of DIR on Wikipedia. For example: List of countries with Burger King franchises. To that logic wouldn't people just goto BK.com and look up what Burger Kings are nearby? CaribDigita (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTDB. No analysis or summary is offered; the article is just a long bulleted list. Anyone searching for this information would just get it from Comcast, who would have a more up-to-date list anyway. Consensus has been that standalone lists of airline destinations are not encyclopedic enough for WP, and I think this article is very similar in concept to that. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIR and minimal coverage of the topic (this is about as good as secondary coverage gets). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTDB. Unencyclopedic content. AusLondonder (talk) 10:20, 23 April 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.

Ultraman Tregear

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

Most of it were just primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AfD'ing it to end the edit war. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:46, 19 April 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. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reject: you have no reason to delete this article!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 02:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:1566:1FAC:A05C:22B9 (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harimua Thailand: We need coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (in this case, Ultraman) to have an article. This article has none of that, and should therefore be deleted. Characters as popular as King Dedede have been redirected for this reason. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except King Dedede is a different topic entirely and have some decent sources unlike this one (Full of primary sources).The Worst part is, there are other 3 Ultraman articles that are all sourced as primary. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 00:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, I was using him as an example of how notability is not popularity or being a well-liked character. The fact that he is in a better position than this character helps my point. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is literally no reception in reliable sources either in this article or on the web, so it does not meet GNG. If there is a good redirect target available, redirect it there. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reject:~~ Redirect is not allowed and the article must be keep!! Harimua Thailand (talk) 04:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? 2605:B40:13E7:F600:6938:8399:70DC:2892 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made the article, you have serious bias ^48JCLTalk 00:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harimua Thailand: You can only make 1 bolded vote per AFD. If you want to make another one, you must strike the old one. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are people allowed to vote twice? Cooper (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was about to say redirect but if you search by the Japanese name, ウルトラマントレギア, a lot more sourcing comes up. Cooper (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entry on Japanese Wikipedia. Cooper (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its a primary source. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 01:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick searches brought me these two. Cooper (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unreliable. See WP:RS, if there's a reliable source then it helps GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's unreliable? Just because you aren't familiar with a website doesn't make it unreliable. I'm not familiar with those website either, but both of those websites are used dozens to hundreds of times on Wikipedia. And they look fine to me. Cooper (talk) 02:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not unreliable, but a situational source. Then it couldn't even help WP:GNG. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG says that reliable "sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language." Let's not discriminate Japanese media. Cooper (talk) 02:11, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even proven as a reliable source. But, lets drop this and move on since we have different perspective. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like you're just trying to deny that any source is valid, for whatever reason occurs to you at the moment. I don't think there is such a thing as a "situational source". Toughpigs (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because its just a reveal source. For the character it says only about this "Among the many Ultraman, Ultraman Taro is the one for whom I feel a powerful, powerful affinity" thats it. But, I don't see any point of making this discussion much longer. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what is a "reveal source"? Cooper (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I meant that the source is a Character reveal only. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 02:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Situational sources have been a thing on the site for a long time. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing this? Thing is, "situational" seems to mean there can be red flags in some sources that would normally be reliable, like if they were writing about something out of the usual scope. I don't think that applies here. Coop (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Situational is generally accepted to mean "use with caution" and typically means that it is unacceptable in some areas and fine in others. Some situational sources have been marked as fine for proving facts but unacceptable for proving notability. This does not apply to all situational sources, but keep in mind that you need to be careful with that kind of source. No comment on the individual links at this time since I don't speak Japanese. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we tell if a source is situational though? It felt like Greenish Pickle! was just casting their own opinion. Coop (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 23:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to cast votes, but if the consensus brings to delete, I would like to suggest an alternative by redirecting Ultraman Tregear to List of Ultraman Taiga characters. I can compress and salvage whatever remains from this page to their appropriate articles. Zero stylinx (talk) 01:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What do editors think of the suggestion of redirection? Please remember not to bludgeon an AFD discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Ultraman Taiga characters as a fair alternative to deletion. Jontesta (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The general notability guideline can be met with non-English sources and with sources available in print rather than in digital. Coverage of the character appears in volumes 164, 171, and 172 of Uchusen, a long-running Japanese periodical about media and tokusatsu. There is also coverage in volumes 256, 265, and 273 of Figya Kingu (Figure King), a Japanese periodical about figurines and toys. Add to this the Tokusatsu Network coverage in English that Cooper found further up in the discussion.
If there is a dispute about sourcing or content in the article, that's something to resolve through means other than AfD. Consider reporting editors to WP:AN/EW rather than AfD'ing it to end the edit war. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:29, 9 May 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 merge‎ to List of Mega Monster Battle characters. ✗plicit 00:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman Belial

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

Most of it were just primary sources. Fails WP:GNG. AfD'ing it to end the edit war. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:45, 19 April 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. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 22:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see, then if you don't mind, may I downsize the page? Even if the verdict is unchanged, at least I tried. Zero stylinx (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can definitely improve the article while it's here at AfD. The most important thing is to identify reliable independent sources that cover this topic. There are a lot of sources in the article right now — I don't read Japanese, so I don't know how to evaluate them. What do you think the best sources are? Toughpigs (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over other 3 character articles that are related with this, but oh god all of the sources that were used were also primary sources. 🥒Greenish Pickle!🥒 (🔔) 05:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject, and this is critical, lacks independent notability. A decision to Merge the text to Mega Monster Battle: Ultra Galaxy, after a serious trimming, would be not unwelcome and perhaps preferable to a plain Redirect. -The Gnome (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the List of Mega Monster Battle characters instead, I can relocate some of Belial's story to that column easily. Zero stylinx (talk) 14:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, not bad at all that. -The Gnome (talk) 15:52, 24 April 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 14:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhona Who Lives by the River

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of WP:NOTABILITY and even indication of whether this will ever exist. The only source is a 2021 story that they plan to make this series. North8000 (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Television. Skynxnex (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per 2021 source, weak draftify until evidence of production surfaces; otherwise, delete. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, until sources are provided that this is actually happening it fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 11:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have no idea how this will fare in the future. Yet, apparently, there are contributors who can see the future. Telegraphically: we have no sources STOP. -The Gnome (talk) 20:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TOOSOON.

TheBritinator (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: We know that. That won't happen in the future. There is no proof. Suleeabc2 (talk) 07:02, 26 April 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 05:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ange Keffa

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR as it does not contain the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet it. I suggest redirecting to Ma Famille. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 03:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references to significant coverage of this actress in reliable, independent sources can be added to the article. The two current sources simply report that an actress who appeared in a television series has died. She is otherwise a mystery, based on what the article says and does not say. Cullen328 (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Ivory Coast. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Instead of translating this article from French should I have redirected it to Ma Famille instead? Moondragon21 (talk) 11:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did suggest that but it's too late since the page already has been made. BlakeIsHereStudios (talk | contributions) 20:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails the notability criteria. A little known artist who met a painful death. We have no more than that. -The Gnome (talk) 15:10, 23 April 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!} 07:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Fuel Formula

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

The last entry in the now-depopulated Category:The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle and Friends episodes (other episodes and story arcs proved to be non-notable and got redirected after prods and AfDs). This one, being the first story arc, is... well, longer than many others but still does not show why it is notable. We have a gigantic plot summary with poor references and my BEFORE fails to find much of use. I suggest redirecting this one as well. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be OR. I can't find much of anything for sourcing, but this much info had to come from somewhere, so I'm lost for how it got so much detail. Regardless, no sourcing is no sourcing and a delete. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Szanto

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

Ad, POV, undisclosed payment Martinc021 (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He's published articles in various media and is used as an expert on news programs, but I don't see anything about him as a person. Sourcing used in the article is mostly primary or non-RS. I can't find any articles about him. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Politics, Florida, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless an editor adds references to reliable sources entirely independent of Szanto that devotes significant coverage to him. What he says on TV or in newspaper opinion pieces are of no value in establishing notability. Coverage of his grandfather is also of no value. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The undisclosed payment claim is unfounded and seemingly libelous. The POV and tone of the article have been addressed. Aaron1a12 (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron1a12 is the creator of the article

Delete since subject clearly fails WP:GNG. Grandfather's article, too, seems rather devoid of notability traces, so no issue of inherited fame invoked here. -The Gnome (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources are written by Michael J. Szanto. I don't think this counts as being independent, even if it is in a reliable source. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Cleo Cooper (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Welborn

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

He doesn't seem to meet WP:ENT / WP:GNG. Working actors, but not the significance of roles needed. Also currently an unref BLP. Boleyn (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No news coverage. Does not satisfy WP:NACTOR. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Articles that have been proposed for deletion are ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With roles as "guy at cafe" and "angry cop" as examples, he's very much not notable. Character actors usually aren't notable unless you have extensive biographical articles about them that we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 25 April 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)‎ Geschichte (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 In. Women

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

Nothing in the article or my BEFORE suggests this meets WP:GNG (or WP:NFILM). Nothing in GBooks or GScholar (well, one mention in a German book?). Maybe there is some coverage in National Lampoon (magazine) ( September/October 1994), but it is a parody magazine, so not sure if it is reliable, and even if there is something there, GNG requires multiple sources (so at least one more). Can anyone find anything to rescue this - or failing that, suggest a valid redirect target? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hello Piotrus, I should think that even if the National Lampoon is a satirical magazine, it is significant coverage. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)~~ Forget what I said, it's obviously a primary source....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added a few things. A redirect (many targets can be considered) is also possible. Opposed to Deletion. Thanks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Besides the reviews already in the article, there's this, this, this, this and this which is enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find independent sources. Does not pass WP:GNG Hkkingg (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hkkingg Take a look at what @Somebodyidkfkdt found. It looks promising, although sadly the last three seem to be empty? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TWL doesn't provide access to the last three unfortunately. There's also this, this, this and this. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 12:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of newly found sources would be helpful. What would the redirect target article be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment~~Delete~~ There are just two significant articles on this movie (that I can find). One is a full paragraph in TV Guide from 8/20/1994. The other is the LA Times article, which is genuinely substantial. This movie gets continued brief mentions in video guides, but almost nothing else. Hard to see this coming even close to meeting WP:NFILM Oblivy (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy Did you look at the sources found above? And are the sources you found oline and linkable for others to review? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus sorry I just did. The Entertainment Tonight article is lengthy, but I don't know if it counts towards the nationally known critics factor. The TV guide article is paywalled above but another TV guide article from the same date is here[8]. The video guides are available at archive.org. Oblivy (talk) 04:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy Playing the devil's advocate (since I am the nom), I think that we have enough sources to show this meets GNG with SIGCOV, although I did not access your sources (but coverage in LA Time, which you call substantial, is pretty good). I'll ping User:Cunard in case he can locate it and quote it/link it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, LA times is source #3. Oblivy (talk) 05:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote to comment. There's little of substance except in that short period of 1994, but Cunard brought the sources. There's a common sense reading of GNG that could easily prevail here and I'd be fine with keeping the article. Oblivy (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bell, Miles (1994-08-19). "'Attack of 5'2'' Women'". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 333, no. 30. pp. 12, 16. ProQuest 2362086371.
  The review notes: "Julie Brown casts a long, amusing shadow in Showtime's head-strongly dumb "National Lam- poon's Attack of the 5'2" Women," an umbrella title for two films. The kicky pair of satires within spoof two of the media's recent bete noir bad girls, skater-agitator Tonya Harding and impromptu surgeon Lorena Bobbitt, whose fictional counterparts are both played by Brown. Yes, nothing is sacred and all bets are off as "Attack" goes on the offensive, seizing the public personas of Harding and Bobbitt to transmit a picture of cheesy, pulp aspirations, where fame and lame are interchangeable and mass communications is the twisted funnel through which rattles the news. ... Ah, but an instant before this, the missus learns that her recently repaired hubby has been cheating again. Ouch! Sophomoric and crude, and way too long, "Attack" manages to play as a fun-dumb damning of the media-rama."
2. Hiltbrand, David (1994-08-22). "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 ft.2 Women". People. Vol. 42, no. 8. p. 12. EBSCOhost 9408227615.
  The review notes: "In this daffy double-header, Julie Brown spoofs two of last year's tabloid inamoratas. First, in an utterly unruly farce, she plays Tonya Hardly. The chain-smoking, asthma-atomizer-sucking, overweight skater is consumed with jealously for her competitor Nancy Cardigan (Khrystyne Haje). ... While this pair of infamous headline-generators present perfect targets for Brown's raucous, ribald satire, the fact is that both episodes seem a little dated already. Nothing goes stale faster than a juicy tabloid scandal. Grade: B+"
3. Schwarzbaum, Lisa (1994-08-19). "Feminine High Jinks". Entertainment Weekly. No. 236. p. 46. EBSCOhost 9408227610.
  The review notes: "In NATIONAL LAMPOON'S ATTACK OF THE 5'2" WOMEN (Showtime, Sunday, 8-9:30 p.m.), the very funny, very brazen star of Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful, the wicked 1991 parody of Madonna's Truth or Dare parody, sinks her fangs into two notorious women of recent headlines, figure skater Tonya Harding and spouse mutilator Lorena Bobbitt, and doesn't let go. As she did in Medusa, Brown ... sticks closely to the original text; in this case, her text is the chronology of Harding's bumbling plot to sideline her hated rival, Nancy Kerrigan, and Bobbitt's bumbling plan to sideline her hated husband, John Wayne Bobbitt. ... That Attack of the 5'2" Women flags is due to its length--90 minutes is a hell of a long way to go for two jokes--as well as to the datedness of its situations. There are no two recent, overreported media stories richer for comedy by and about women than those of Harding and Bobbitt, and, consequently, we've already seen and heard a heap. This quarry is too easy. In the name of comedy sisterhood, Julie Brown should lace up her bustier and work at a tougher assignment--say, whipping sketch comedy into shape. She TV: C+ At-tack of the 5'2" Women: B-. "
4. Willman, Chris (1994-08-20). "TV Reviews : '5 Ft. 2 Women' Doesn't Measure Up as Timely Satire". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review ntoes: "For, though everyone would recognize John Wayne Bobbitt (or Juan Wayne, as his wife calls him here) as the funnier figure from his subsequent deadpan attempts to cash in on his celebrity, Brown hogs the comedy in this half with her Venezuelan accent and a macha swagger that doesn’t quite square with anyone’s worst picture of the real Lorena. As a targetless spoof, it’s, well, satirically challenged."
5. Taylor, Jonathan (1994-08-19). "He Never Give Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story". Variety. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "Brown’s brilliant Madonna satire, “Medusa: Dare to Be Truthful,” and her campy novelty hit songs like “Homecoming Queen’s Got a Gun” point to her obvious skill. But “Attack of the 5’2″ Women” comes off no better than a latter-day National Lampoon, where the philosophy has descended to the point where anything is allowed, and it would be good if at least some of it were funny."
6. Mendoza, Manuel (1994-08-21). "Tonya-Lorena sendup is a mean-spirited letdown". The Dallas Morning News. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "The humor in "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Give Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story" is broad - Ms. Harding's behind, for instance, is the target of many a joke. And the panting media, perfect prey, escape virtually unscathed. Ms. Brown plays both women as conniving, clueless and exceedingly tacky. The adjectives "gross" and "cheap" also come to mind - for example, when, in trying to attract "Juan Wayne," Ms. Babbitt licks a jukebox. Meanwhile, "Tonya Hardly" cuts her pizza with her skates, while her ditzy competitor "Nancy Cardigan" endorses pork with the line, "It's really neat." Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women isn't."
7. Richmond, Ray (1994-08-19). "Television - HBO 'Enemy' Remake Wages Uphill Battle". Daily News of Los Angeles. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "This elevation of tackiness to an art form is what we get from Julie Brown in "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," a rousing 90- minute double feature of rude, crude and lewd that premieres at 8 p.m. Sunday on Showtime. Brown portrays Harding (called Tonya Hardly here) and Bobbitt (Lenora Babbitt for these purposes) in a pair of satires that prove as side-splitting as they are over-the-top. ... "Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women" is undeniably sophomoric stuff. Yet it's often so funny you have trouble catching your breath."
8. Laurence, Robert P. (1994-08-18). "Tawdry events turn into comedies - Harding, Bobbitt inspire outrageous minimovies". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2024-04-28. Retrieved 2024-04-28.
  The review notes: "Under the umbrella title, "National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 Women," Brown presents "Tonya: The Battle of Wounded Knee" and "He Never Gave Me Orgasm: The Lenora Babbitt Story." ... Her method is simple. Beginning with stories we all know, she takes each somewhere beyond the truth, twisting here, adding there, being careful to offend just about everybody at one time or another. And yes, both are very funny -- if you're not the sort to be easily outraged."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow National Lampoon's Attack of the 5 Ft. 2 In. Women to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above by Cunard and other editors earlier in the discussion that together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:14, 28 April 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.

Casey Childs

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

Fails WP:GNG; no WP:SIGCOV; most recently edited by someone with an offensive username. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, United States of America, and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wasn't able to find much information about him, beyond the fact that he's a theatre director. There is a passing mention in a brief Playbill article, which states that he is directing the play, but that was the only source I could find about the Casey Childs that matched the article's description. The other sources were about various different people named Casey Childs. Bandit Heeler (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I object to the fact that the majority of the nom relates to the fact that one of the edits to this article was by User:USAstinks ("most recently edited by someone with an offensive username"). That is an argument to avoid. The user did not create this article, and in fact they made only one of the 65 edits to this article over the last 16+ years. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. While I do believe that the article fails notability, I don't think the fact that one of the (not main) contributors to the article has an offensive name is a relevant point in a deletion discussion. Bandit Heeler (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is not very relevant, but i do agree with the point that there is not enough information about him. Kasphero (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Primary Stages. There appears to be a painter called Casey Childs who is more notable per the online coverage. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:34, 30 April 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:44, 7 May 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 merge‎ to Through the Dragon's Eye. ✗plicit 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Through the Dragon's Eye episodes

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

Looking back in articles history the sources given were links to youtube videos which were removed because of unclear copyright status - which appears to be where these plot summaries are lifted from (example ep1 matching the plot summary in this article exactly). This makes me think that the article is a possible copyvio itself. Either way the plot summaries excessive, and this is not an encylopedic list. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- D'n'B-t -- 09:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Lists, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to parent article Through the Dragon's Eye in it's existing "Episodes" section, but use the Template:Episode table template to organise this neater and with a condensed episode summary. I agree that it's hard to justify the need for a separate episode article for this TV series, which I recall well from my own childhood, but none the less accept the episodes themselves aren't particularly notable. I am not convinced by the WP:COPYVIO concerns as expressed by the nom, as it seems the episode summaries were written (c.2008) before they were uploaded to youtube (c.2010). If there was evidence the current episodes prose existed/exists elsewhere before being added to the article, that may then give weight to deletion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as outlined by Bungle – neither this list nor the parent article is long enough to justify a split. Some summaries may need to be trimmed after merging to comply with MOS:TVPLOT. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:52, 23 April 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 01:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KELM-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Nevada. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems like a remnant of the looser inclusion standards in this topic area in 2010 — the only known/discussed programming was a full-time national service. There's probably little-to-no significant coverage here. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Wcquidditch. Samoht27 (talk) 18:56, 29 April 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 National Geographic original programming as a sensible ATD. Owen× ☎ 21:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going Ape

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

This article was previously deleted after an expired PROD. I could not find significant coverage of this documentary in reliable sources. I could not find any critical reviews. The New York Times source states, in full: "This three-part series looks at the way humans mimic chimpanzee behavior, starting with the power walk and dominance posture of the alpha male." The Futon Critic is a press release. A redirect to National Geographic Channel might be appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Animal, Science, Behavioural science, Psychology, and Social science. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article should probably be marked as a stub in need for more references. As a National Geographic TV show featuring renowned primatologist and presenter Charlotte Uhlenbroek, it must have had coverage and reviews in media. The New York Times link is an example. JohnMizuki (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JohnMizuki, I conducted a search and the only coverage of the show are brief announcements like the one in the NYT. A one sentence description is not significant coverage. The source's that you've added do not contribute to notability. The National Geographic sources are not independent and TV Guide is a one sentence description with links to find where to watch the show online.
One way to establish notability would be to provide the three best sources that you can find. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding new sources that have been added: Broadway World is a NatGeo press release; OC Register has only three sentences about Going Ape: "This three-part series examines how similar human behavior is to that of our primate cousins. The show uses hidden cameras, social experiments and footage of apes and monkeys in the wild to show how human social behavior mirrors that of other species."; and Gizmodo is one sentence followed by a couple paragraphs quoting from a NatGeo press release description of the show.
I will also add that I conducted my WP:BEFORE search on Google, Google News, and Newspapers.com, and the only sources I could find were one or two sentence TV Guide-type listings in newspapers, similar to the NYT. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with the newly added citations, it seems to fail GNG. Nearly all of the sources (other than PRs) make brief mentions of the show. It lacks in-depth independent analysis/coverage from a reliable major pub. X (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of National Geographic original programming. Fails WP:GNG as a standalone article. Available independent sources are only short descriptions from TV listings, not significant coverage. Jfire (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WKOB-LD

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

Fails WP:GNG; too long; questionable sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV needed to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: It clearly has a longer history than many other HC2/Innovate stations, but a good chunk of it has been relaying other stations (this was originally WCBS-TV's UHF translator back when the New York City stations all had those) or full-time national services. Maybe there's something out there at least about the station's Korean days of the 1990s and early 2000s (of note, this was not part of last year's bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles), but it's hard to imagine anything warranting anything more than an {{R to list entry}}. Probably another remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006 in the end. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:37, 27 April 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.

Chashni (TV series)

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

Notability issue. It's not even runed for 6 months. Xegma(talk) 07:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 07:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TV Series ran on Star Plus and streamed digitally on Disney+ Hotstar. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NTVNATL. Reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:NTV Imsaneikigai (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redirect to StarPlus would be an acceptable WP:ATD but experience shows me it would likely end up in an edit war over the next year. The issue is not that the series exists, but the referencing. Notability is not based on WP:ITEXISTS. It is based on secondary "RELIABLE" sources. In this case, the sources cannot be considered reliable as they fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. No bylines and churnalism. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:CNMall41, i have updated the article with primary and better sources, hope now it is better. Please suggest improvements if any and please reconsider your vote. Imsaneikigai (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You included one reference which squarely falls under NEWSORGINDIA. Byline is "web desk." Not sure how much clearer I can make this. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These references [9] [10][11] [12] are primary sources and also have bylines. These also do not have any churnalism. Kindly check. @CNMall41 Imsaneikigai (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interview with the actress about the actress and only mentions her role, This is an interview with the director which is not independent nor does it have editorial oversight, This is a brief announcement about it losing a time slot, and This is about an actress and only verifies she plays a role in the show, not in-depth about the show itself]. As previously stated, there is enough to verify its existence but WP:ITEXISTS couldn't be used as a valid argument. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This [13] interview is of the actor (hero) and not director, also can you explain what do you mean by "editorial oversight" because this article is based on the interview taken by the media house itself with the actor. Thanks. Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Editorial oversight is about fact checking. Interviews like this are not. Similar to you asking me a question and me answering, there needs to be editorial oversight where there is not in this case. I could say that I am a billionaire but without editorial oversight, there is no way to verify that. Regardless, it is not indepdnent and none of this is significant. AGAIN, it only VERIFIES the existence of the show, not establishes notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but how can you say that there is no reference that denies WP:NEWSORGINDIA? because there are personalised interviews of the cast with the specific media house like Times of India and The Tribune! Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I understand what you mean by "no reference that denies NEWSORGINDIA." The references you just pointed out are not independent and only brief mentions so there is no need to even evaluate them under NEWSORGINDIA because they couldn't be used to establish notability regardless. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to tag the articles/references i was talking about. This [14] the interview of one of the main cast about the track with The Tribune, second [15] this tells about the development a particular cast member has put to fit in role. Also this reference [16] tells us about the production phase of the series and is reliable as per WP:ICTFSOURCES Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming ad nauseam and seems to be grasping at straws at this point. I realize you have a passion for this as the creator the page, but these have already been addressed. Interviews are not independent - PERIOD - It does not matter that they verify. One of the references is about an actor losing weight for the show. It only mentions him as having a part in the show, not anything about the show itself. The BH articles clearly falls under NEWSORGINDIA if you look at the byline. This I know you are familiar with as you talked about bylines above. Not sure what else to tell you at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 7 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!} 08:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A high profile tv series well sourced. Desertarun (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG as far as the basic skeleton of the article, but the plot summary needs to either get better sourcing or needs to be switched to a two-sentence logline. Nate • (chatter) 22:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Can those voting !Keep possibly point out the references that show notability that do NOT fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA? I am seeing nothing but. I will gladly change my !vote if someone is willing to show me what I do not see. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask what policy that is, as thats a redlink@CNMall41 Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Me Da Wikipedian:, I fixed it. Two letters were transposed. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A number of the 'keep' !votes are on the weaker end, and I think CNMall41's question 6 days ago is a reasonable one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is well-sourced plus 6 month long run is not insignificant run. Pri2000 (talk) 18:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, can you point out the significant coverage that does not fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The series only ran for approximately 2.5 months. Despite being featured on a notable channel with a notable cast, the main issue with this article is its references. While it may meet WP:NTV, it certainly does not pass WP:GNG. & I agree with CNMall41's viewpoint, as it raises a valid point. ManaliJain (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @ManaliJain, I have just updated and sourced the plot as well as cited the cast with sources which I feel are sufficient to determine significant coverage and verifiability. Also I have removed no bylines references as well. Please check. Thankyou. Imsaneikigai (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: First, I dont think duration is the parameter for notability because there are many Indian Series which have lasted lesser than the series or similar than the series like Pracchand Ashok (39 episodes), Sherdil Shergill, Lag Ja Gale etc. Secondly, I feel the article has enough reliable sources and has constantly been updated with regards to the problems suggested above by User:CNMall41. There are enough sources with bylines like these[17] [18] [19][20] [21] and also there is no churnalism because every media portal has taken separate interview with the cast or have written unidentical content on the series with establishes verifiability. Thirdly, if we look most of the Indian tv articles are mostly similarly referenced and I have searched Bollywood Hungama articles and every article has the same byline "Bollywood Hungama News Network" thereby certainly ensuring that not all articles are paid articles. I think every region has its own policies of journalism and litter leverage can be given on these aspects. Imsaneikigai (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment I have to this AfD. As stated previously, these only verify the existence. Verifiability is not notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 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 Ugly Betty season 3#ep63. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Stars (Ugly Betty)

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

Non-notable television episode. Boarder line WP:ALLPLOT Couldnt find any sources on the episode Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ugly Betty season 3#ep63. Episode titles are reasonable search topics, but there is little evidence of coverage for this episode outside of brief mentions of Adele's guest appearance. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:08, 26 April 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!} 06:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World in Your Home

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

I couldn't establish that this programme was notable. Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some content and some citations to the article. I hope that those will help. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on newly added sources. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For a lost 1940s TV show, we at least have a claim to significance, record on where it aired and some of what it contained, and a review. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 00:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per HEY. Sources have since been added and show a variety of coverage from when the show aired that establish notability. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WDHC-LD

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

Fails WP:GNG; some sources are questionable. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only seeing press releases and TV guides as coverage, which isn't secondary. BrigadierG (talk) 01:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations: At least in theory there is probably more potential for significant coverage here than the numerous all-national too-new LPTVs (this one does seem to have always had some local content), but in 2024 notability on Wikipedia is determined by, at minimum, the known existence of GNG-level sourcing, not merely the possibility of them. There might not be enough to justify anything more than an {{R to list entry}} as an alternative to deletion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:43, 27 April 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. While it could be argued that this discussion should be closed as No consensus I find the new accounts who popped up to argue for Deletion more than a little suspicious. AFD is not a place that new editors find on their first few days editing. Plus those editors arguing to Keep this article are AFD regulars I trust. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Newton

AfDs for this article:

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

Not yet notable per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:NACTOR. None of the cited sources are considered reliable. I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject to meet WP:ENT/WP:GNG— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raqib Sheikh (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 April 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 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just noting that this account has only been registered for an hour and their only edits have been to start this AFD. No editing on any other Wikimedia projects either so I'm not sure how they know policy abbreviations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Heartland (Canadian TV series): probably her most well known role, trivial amount of coverage [22], [23], outside of that, only CBC promotional material. Oaktree b (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's not about her well known role, but the fact that all the cited sources in this page aren't considered reliable, as per the Wikipedia's reliable sources list:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources 103.237.36.24 (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok if it gets !deleted as well, I didn't see coverage that I'd use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that is so, would you please recommend deletion for this article in this talk page. For some reason, this AFD hasn't produced much discussion as of yet and I'm not sure how Wikipedia will deal with such nomination whose discussion page doesn't even have one recommendation. Raqib Sheikh (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources or coverages to build an article. Izzac Leiberheir (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Izzac Leiberheir, you barely joined here in less than six days, and after two edits here, you jumped to deletion. Hmmm, is there anything we don't know here? — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have also looked into the article and I frankly agree with the nomination. Couldn't find a single reference from a reliable source. Ashik Rahik (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Most of the sources if not all were based on a notable film. I was also thinking of the nominations when WP:ACTOR said, "multiple and lead roles". I became skeptic if her roles in the films other than Heartland (inclusively too). But the film.is notable and she was much credited for it. I have no other option that this meets notability guidelines.Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 02:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Theroadislong (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Theroadislong, appearing in multiple films without verifiability doesn't meet notability. Besides, almost all the sources were centralized to reviews or mention of her on the film, Heartland and remember, that isn't significant coverages. While Wikipedia is not perfect, redirect seems to work here per her acting non or less lead roles. Unless the article has been covered for playing a particular role in two or more films (considered notable per WP:NFILM), it should be kept, if not —redirect per WP:ATD. — Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:08, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus currently seems split between redirect and delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources here look good enough. And here's another one from a major newspaper in 2013. A decade of media coverage! And really, 10 seasons in a major national TV series - I'm not sure why we are here. Nfitz (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the sources are reliable? Because they don't seem reliable to me, as per Wikipedia's reliable source list: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia. None of the cited sources within the article are on the list. And as per my knowledge about Wikipedia, when an article does not have reliable sources as references, which is when some or at least one these sources is not cited, then there's a big reason to delete the article. Raqib Sheikh (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really suggesting, User:Raqib Sheikh that a 120-year old Postmedia broadsheet is not a reliable source? That list came about to document bad sources. The Toronto Star - the largest newspaper in the nation, and the paper of record in Toronto isn't there as well. Neither is The Gazette - the largest English-language paper in Quebec. Would you discount those? Their lack of presence on that list simply indicates no one has ever felt a need to question it! Nfitz (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Believe it satisfies WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Sandstein 19:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Way Out with Jurriaan Kamp

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

Fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Environment, and Netherlands. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The network it's on, EarthX, doesn't have an article; it does have some distribution on major pay-TV systems in the US, but like other channels like AWE, it's basically a dumping ground for vanity project environmental documentaries even Tubi can't bother to deal with like this show. The WP:SPAness doesn't help here, either. Nate • (chatter) 23:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm probably going to end up agreeing with the Delete vote, although I'm still looking to see if there's more sources, but I feel like I have to point out that the fact that the network it's on (EarthX) doesn't have an article is not a valid reason for deletion. The network actually looks like it could easily have an article, as there's a lot of secondary sources reporting on it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:24, 24 April 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 13:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Germany

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Germany. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. No evidence that these lists are encyclopedic, they've never been discussed as a group in RS. BrigadierG (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indiscriminate list of trivia. Flibirigit (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in France

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and France. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary list. Shankargb (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shankargb: Note that "unnecessary" is not a valid deletion rational. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:15, 29 April 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 ABS-CBN. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabado Barkada

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

Tagged as unreferenced since 2009 but was actually unreferenced since 2006. No good hits on GNews and GBooks. GNews archives only turned out two ads related to it. Alternatively, Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 23 April 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:15, 30 April 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!} 12:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WAST-LP

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wisconsin. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added several references, most offline to NewsBank (Duluth paper is some of the hardest to obtain anywhere — that can be said of any Forum Communications paper!). There is SIGCOV of its very short-lived news operation. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Each of the sources added by Sammi provide the WP:SIGCOV needed for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More review of new sources would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 23 April 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:15, 30 April 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 23:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Vietnam

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Vietnam. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This fails to meet the WP:LISTN criteria. Let'srun (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 23:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Thailand

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but news announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Thailand. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No opinion on the page in its current format, which does seem to be WP:LISTCRUFT, but it's a notable topic with potential for a valid article, especially given the long-standing legal and political issues surrounding broadcasting rights for major sporting events (mostly football) since 2012, which have been widely covered.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] If the page does get deleted it should be without prejudice to the creation of a proper article. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources found. Deletion is not cleanup. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite sources, will never pass WP:NLIST. A list wihtout body text for context will never pass GNG too. This is 2024, not 2004. Wikipedia standards has gone a long way since. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a tv guide, this fails to meet the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to KJJC-TV. There's a consensus here not to retain (between nominator, two bolded opinions and one comment), choosing redirect as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KINV-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Delete or merge with sister KJJC-TV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Montana. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking any secondary sources to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG and I can't locate any significant coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 03:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really only these two articles to speak of: https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-billings-gazette-christian-tv-statio/88543335/ https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-billings-gazette-fcc-licenses-low-po/145098846/ Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:23, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KJJC-TV: I can't say there's all that much to truly merge there, but the brief mention in the lead is just enough to merit a redirect as an alternative to deletion in the absence of sufficiently-substantial coverage. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:46, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:50, 22 April 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. Anyone is free to create a redirect if they see it fit. ✗plicit 14:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWBK-LP

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a more complicated one than a clearly-non-notable LPTV—which, to be clear, this very much is—should be. Obviously there is no independent notability here; in and of itself the only known programming on this analog license was TBN, and its post-TBN history seems to have mostly been on paper and off the air. But along the way it did spawn a digital companion channel that survives to this day. But WWBK-LD ended up becoming an equally-non-notable HC2/Innovate station and a separate article for that was redirected at AfD. There is zero reason to retain even one article on this (these should have been merged years ago, if only to have had one less AfD on this subject), and I'm leaning towards delete, but this arguably could be redirected to the list of stations owned by Innovate Corp. as an {{R avoided double redirect|WWBK-LD}}. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 21 April 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 13:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Brazil

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 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 April 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Brazil. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per WP:NLIST. Sports contracts are dynamic with broadcasters, even more so with the entry of streaming. This list doesn't seem relevant. Svartner (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these article seem to me like the lists of airline destinations that often appear at AfD. Sourced to primary sources or routine announcements, essentially directories, and unclear whether they are updated regularly enough even to be useful as directories. Mccapra (talk) 11:03, 28 April 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!} 10:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Canada

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Canada. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports broadcasting contracts in the United States. 162 etc. (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see how a bunch of news announcments make a subject notable. Keep? Look at the state of this? Almost everything is unsourced. Tells you the low-quality state of Wikipedia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I found [34], [35], and [36], which may help determine notabilty. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:38, 21 April 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, Daniel (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:14, 29 April 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 01:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of EuroLeague broadcasters

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, will be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, Lists, and Europe. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a directory. Mccapra (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication WP:LISTN is met: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources...—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 29 April 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 23:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Romania

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, sources are primary sources, nothing but announcements and none of those assert notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Romania. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this falls under WP:NOTTVGUIDE as does any of the other articles in this category. Halfadaniel (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, It is not an EPG because it doesn't list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules. We should also delete all these articles: Category:Lists of sporting event broadcasters ??? What is the difference? Cetateanul Rosu (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a directory. Mccapra (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in Portugal

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the only one source are nothing but announcement, not asserting notability. Those arguing for a keep claiming how useful it is, shall be advised to refer to WP:USEFUL. I also advise Fandom for them if they want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and Portugal. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a directory. Mccapra (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:13, 29 April 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. A merger discussion can continue editorially Star Mississippi 14:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michele Fitzgerald

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

Notable for only winning Survivor: Kaôh Rōng. I think her runner-up finish in Survivor: Winners at War doesn't have enough depth or substantial coverage to be as equally notable as her Survivor win, despite being highly focused there. Same can be said about her appearances in The Challenge, where she hasn't yet won. I don't think she qualifies for WP:NENT either. Must be redirected to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng per WP:BIO1E (if WP:BLP1E doesn't apply), WP:PAGEDECIDE, or WP:BIODELETE. George Ho (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Television, and New Jersey. George Ho (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think more independent reliable source are needed.--Meligirl5 (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do independent reliable sources make BLP1E or BIO1E inapplicable? Even meeting WP:N or GNG would not outweigh the topic's potential failures to comply with the project's policy toward such biographies, but I bet you disagree, eh? George Ho (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly understood she was only notable because she won in a notable event. But I can’t say delete or keep because the biography tells more than just the notable event but fails providing sources to meet WP:GNG. So I just had to suggest an opinion that could help to meet WP:GNG. Other editors are welcome to say what they feel.--Meligirl5 (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion because of her performance in both of her Survivor seasons, but I agree more independent reliable sources are needed. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Meligirl5 and JohnAdams1800: What are your thoughts on redirecting the article to Survivor: Kaôh Rōng, an alternative to deletion? George Ho (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this because I love survivor. 75.132.100.119 (talk) 01:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I would suggest the article should be move to draft space, since she seems to be notable for a particular event but fails WP:GNG. Maybe before the 6 months time more proof of notability would have been gathered for the subject to be on the main space. If no improvement after 6 months, the draft page will be deleted as per wikipedia draft page policy under WP:G13.--Meligirl5 (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in South Korea

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. The only source are simply announcment, just not worthy of an encyclopaedic value. Those arguing for a keep must be advised of WP:USEFUL. I also advise those to create a Fandom page for your favorite sport if you want to save it so much. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Lists, and South Korea. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A jumble of sports contracts, not encylopedic or maintainable. Desertarun (talk) 11:13, 27 April 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!} 23:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NLIST no indication this has been discussed as a group, meets LISTCRUFT, there is nothing encyclopedic here. // Timothy :: talk 22:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in the Netherlands

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the sources are primary sources, are nothing but announcements and does not assert notability. @BrigadierG: per suggestion by admin. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A jumble of sports contracts, not encylcopedic. Desertarun (talk) 11:26, 27 April 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!} 23:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This does not meet the criteria established by WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 00:03, 28 April 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 television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations. The argument that this meets GNG was refuted without subsequent rebuttal. Daniel (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WCKV-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of television stations in Tennessee#LPTV stations: a 25-year-old station is probably more likely to have the required significant coverage, but this topic area's inclusion standards are no longer based on existence and the mere possibility that there are sources — they require SIGCOV and the definitive existence of same. Unless better sourcing emerges than directories, FCC records, and non-independent sources, an {{R to list entry}} as an alternative to deletion is the best that can be done. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG, including [[37]][[38]] Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to state list That's not SIGCOV. That's mostly regurgitated press releases. About the only substantive fact I learned was that this was once a FamilyNet affiliate. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 20 April 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K21JQ-D

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. If it is a rebroadcaster, merge to the parent station. Otherwise, merge to the owner. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to merge to. The owner doesn't even have an article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see any redirect or merge target. Let'srun (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 20 April 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While this is mentioned at list of television stations in Washington (state)#Translators, it is as as relay of K36EW-D, which does not have (and never has had) an article. I suppose the whole Blue Mountain Television operation is a run-of-the-mill religious station that does have some locally/regionally-produced material and is not entirely national programming, but lacks the significant coverage we require. A remnant of the looser inclusion "standards" of 2006. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 27 April 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!} 06:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KRLB-LD

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Washington. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough SIGCOV in Tri-Cities paper. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 20 April 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, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:58, 27 April 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. The Delete arguments are stronger, but without quorum, and with opposition to a soft delete, no action can be taken at this point. Owen× ☎ 14:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SF X Fantasy Rayforce

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

A television series that never was. Fails WP:GNG Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Interesting niche stuff about Korean planned and apparently abandoned TV series. Korean wiki article has no references at all. Current sourcing: 1) English language email interview with the director at scifijapan.com [39]. According to [40], this is "a fan-made website", there is no information on who conducted the intereview 2) a Korean language news article [41] from thisisgame.com, by "Reporter Park Sang-beom". According to NamuWiki [42] it is " a webzine frequently visited by people in the industry". So the sources are borderline reliable, that provide some SIGCOV of this. The nominator failed to do a WP:BEFORE (WP:TROUT is awarded). There is next to nothing else under English title. Sadly, I am not fluent in Korean, so I rely on machine translation, but I see some coverage, ex. [43] for example states "The demo video of the science fiction drama 'Space Electric Ray Force', scheduled to be broadcast in September 2010, is receiving great response from netizens", however the source is some minor Korean news site. There is various other coverage: [44] - some of it may be rewritten press releases, Korean news websites are not great (although frankly coverage of such niche topics in English and other languages is often less than Pulitzer-winning too...). Bottom line is that we need someone familiar with Korean Internet to comment on whether there is some reliable, SIGCOV coverage. What I see is borderline, and given the nominator did not bother to analyze the sources or do BEFORE, and nobody else presented a critique of the article or sourcing - a week keep is justified. PS. I've added a bit about the cast, and refs to support the claims from ko wiki (which as I said has no refs); I hope my machine translation of the refs is not faulty. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the references. I suggest we stick to Wikipedia:TVSERIES. I know, it is not a notability guideline but a tool to help determine notability. It says: "In most cases, a television series or season is not eligible for an article until it has been confirmed by reliable sources to have started filming (excluding a pilot's filming)". I checked the referenced interview; it was held at a time when filming had not started. For want of confirmation in reliable, independent sources that filming indeed had started, I maintain my deletion proposal. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that this did not get filmed, but the promo video attracted some attention. I will stand by my weak keep, while hoping editors more fluent in Korean than me, and familiar with the reliability of Korean websites, will chime in. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 16 April 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!} 22:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The show never aired, this isn't a barrier to inclusion but neither the article nor the refs look like they're saying notable to me. Desertarun (talk) 17:52, 26 April 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. There hasn't been partcipation in the last two weeks. (non-admin closure) Toadette^Edit! 05:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth Down and Love

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

Article about a television film, not properly referenced as passing either WP:NFILM or WP:TVSHOW. As always, television films are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with absolutely no evidence of third-party media coverage shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 29 March 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. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a presentation in Southern Living, and a review in Decider (see this).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Southern Living article is "Checking out an exclusive clip". This is about the extent of all coverage I find, where to watch the thing. The TV Guide sourcing in the article is bare, so isn't a valid source. I don't mind any reviews other than what's given already, that's not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This [45], still doesn't add enough to the discussion to !keep. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. White, Brett (2023-09-09). "Stream It or Skip It: 'Fourth Down and Love' on Hallmark Scores a Touchdown Thanks to Pascale Hutton and Ryan Paevey". Decider. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
  The review notes: "I’m happy to report that Fourth Down and Love offers no real surprises plot-wise and pretty much adheres to every trope you expect from both a Hallmark romance and a kid-centric sports movie. You bet Mike’s brother and sister-in-law try to set him up with Erin every chance they can get. You bet there’s a sweet and sassy grandma. There’s a fundraiser, a winning touchdown, hurt feelings and boosted morale, all that good stuff. I’m happy that Fourth Down and Love has all of that, because all of those plot points are fun to see and because it means I can focus this take on what the movie really excels at: character."
2. Nowak, Laura (2023-09-09). "Fourth Down and Love Explores Second Chances at Love". TV Fanatic. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
  The review is listed on Rotten Tomatoes here.
  The review notes: "While we're unsure if this film was a one-off or part of a movie series, I'm crossing my fingers for more. I found the entire Hanson family to be charming, and I'd love to see Mike coach another season of the Whalers flag football team with assistance from Jimmy, Danielle, and Erin. Since this was the first adult male that gave Kiara any attention, I think we need more time to see how the family dynamics evolve now that Mike is her mom's boyfriend and her coach."
3. Wang, K.L. Connie (2023-09-09). "An Awkward Second Meet-Cute Reunites a Single Mom and Pro Football Player in Hallmark's 'Fourth Down and Love'". Parade. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
  The article notes: "In Hallmark Channel's latest Fall into Love movie, a single mom runs into her old college sweetheart who is now a professional football player. ... Fourth Down and Love premieres on Saturday, Sept. 9 at 8 p.m. ET on Hallmark Channel."
4. Baer, Rebecca Angel (2023-09-07). "Check Out An Exclusive Clip From Hallmark's Football-Themed 'Fourth Down And Love'". Southern Living. Archived from the original on 2024-04-07. Retrieved 2024-04-07.
  The article notes: "Hallmark is giving all fans a big treat with their newest flick in their Fall into Love programing, Fourth Down and Love starring Pascale Hutton and Ryan Paevey. Paevey plays professional football star Mike Hansen who suffers an injury that sidelines him for a month. Mike’s brother Jimmy (Dan Payne, Outrunners) convinces Mike to come home while he’s recovering."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Fourth Down and Love to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of newly found sources would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still hoping for an assessment of newly found sources and whether or not they make a difference as the deletion rationale states the article is not properly referenced.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 19 April 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. No P&G-based arguments brought up by the Keep participants. Owen× ☎ 14:19, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sports broadcasting contracts in South America

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason below:

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, the sources are announcements or are primary and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and South America. SpacedFarmer (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTTVGUIDE covers this explicitly BrigadierG (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Middle East and Latin America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Wikipedia is not a TV guide. Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: At least keep the South America article, which is more updated. These articles help out of country viewers information about sports rights in their countries, and as such they serve a reference function worthy of encyclopedic value. The majority are good articles with good independent references and should not be considered for deletion. These lists are not TV guides--Claudio Fernag (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VALUABLE applies. Useful to you but it doesn't mean it should belong on Wikipedia. Is it sourced though? Does it have a reliable third party source that is not news announcements? SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, hoping for a little more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't a TV guide. This does not meet the WP:LISTN criteria. Let'srun (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These lists are not TV guides. Claudio Fernag (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not as in what time your favourite league is on your TV channel. More like a list of what channel you can watch your favourite leagues. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. This isn't encyclopedic content, and it doesn't meet WP:NLIST in any way, shape or form. Note: the only person so far advocating keeping is the creator of the South American article. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:There are other similar articles on lists of sports rights (football, Olympics, basketball, etc.) that are a contribution and not TV guides.--Edu1388 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USEFUL applies to this argument. The difference between this and others you mentioned (or some) is that they are in a better quality and this isn't. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons outlined by Claudio Fernag --Pablo inos (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please come up with a better argument than that. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:33, 25 April 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

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 == Television ==
 <!-- New AFDs should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Czech First League broadcasters}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Swiss Super League broadcasters}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian Super League broadcasters}}