Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television

WP:DELSORT/TV

	WikiProject Television

Project main page
Project discussion
Project assessment	talk
Television portal	talk
Descendant WikiProjects and task forces
Showcase

Project organization
Article alerts
Deletion sorting
Popular pages
New articles
Project banner	talk
Project category	talk
Project templates	talk
Television stubs

Guidelines
Project manual of style	talk
Project notability guidelines	talk
TV article naming convention	talk
Broadcasting article naming convention	talk

Related WikiProjects
Actors and Filmmakers
Albums
Animation
Anime and manga
Comics
Film
Literature
Media franchises
Radio
Screenwriters
Westerns

view · edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Television. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Television|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Television. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for TV related AfDs
This will only scan about 1,500 categories. Go here to tweak which ones are scanned.

Related deletion sorting

Television

Bottom Live: The Big Number Two Tour

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

Fails WP:GNG --Altenmann >talk 18:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom Live 2003: Weapons Grade Y-Fronts Tour

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV --Altenmann >talk 18:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom Live 2001: An Arse Oddity

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

Does not seem notable. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 15:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Kruger

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 05:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and News media. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 05:59, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Radio, Television, Internet, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there - I'm curious to know on what grounds you think this page is worthy of deletion - this is someone who has decades of relevant experience ARealWorm (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm curious to know why you don't think this person is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia- they have decades worth of relevant experience and engagement in the Australian industry and are now head of the Media Diversity Australia ARealWorm (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

not meeting notability due to a lack of independent sourcing Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 5 is the only independent sourcing about this person. I don't find any other articles that could be used for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I think it's close. I agree that source 5 is the best source, and it's an article largely focused on the subject that was published in one of Australia's newspapers of record. But source 4 is also independent, significant coverage in a very reputable newspaper. I think you could easily make the case that those two sources are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. But both are very similar routine staffing announcements (one says she is joining ABC Radio Canberra, the other says she is now leaving), and feature a very high volume of quotes. I could be persuaded otherwise, but I don't think I really see the necessary depth in those two sources to demonstrate notability. MCE89 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper & Singing Simon

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

Contested PROD; only found trivial mentions on user-generated sites and social media, nothing nearly reliable or significant enough to satisfy WP:NWEB or WP:GNG. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Education, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any coverage to meet general noteworthy guidelines. Aside, the wikilinks from the segments seem very non-sequitur. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources that I can find, failing WP:NWEB, WP:NFILM, and WP:GNG. Original impact of the series seems to have been minimal, and though it has recently been rediscovered there seems to be no significant coverage - maybe there will be in the future, but there's nothing notable about it currently. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:20, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do see some growth for this article, as in the past, rediscovered lost media has exploded in popularity that it gave notability, maybe in the future, but that may just be me. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WJNK-LD

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

Contested WP:PROD; questionable sourcing; some original research; tone concerns. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Tennessee. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WPGD-TV History before Edge Spectrum came in and switched networks from 3ABN to TBN is unremarkable, and whatever their actual plans outside rebroadcasting WPGD-TV on ATSC 3.0 is a big unknown just because we have no idea what Edge Spectrum plans for their stations when they actually build them out or acquire one. Right now it's a pointless in-market translator for a network overcovered by WPGD and streaming...and it's not even broadcasting any of the networks in HD, even though the standard would allow that and they have nothing else outside these channels on their spectrum (this is why I AfD'ed their article, because I'm baffled about everything Edge Spectrum does). Nathannah • 📮 21:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ranald Leask

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

We're not Linkedin and I can't find sigcov. Jay Cubby 00:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Scotland. Jay Cubby 00:46, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Television. Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BEFORE search finds close to no sources on him, all just brief mentions from over a decade ago. Fails WP:GNG. jolielover♥talk 06:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found nothing except sources where he was being cited as a spokesperson. Seems very unlikely to be notable. MCE89 (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Rettig

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

Non notable politician, never elected to office, somewhat known as part of a TV show but not notable as a result. Bedivere (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Chile. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Law. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Have enough WP:SIGCOV (see es.wiki). Svartner (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Rettig passes WP:GNG by receiving enough press coverage for the criminal cases in which he has been a plaintiff or analyst. A clear example of this, although in a different legal field, is the case of attorney Camille Vasquez, who has also represented television personalities like Johnny Depp. Carigval.97 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great Intelligence

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

Genuinely surprised by the lack of coverage that exists for this character. I was hoping to improve his article, as its current Reception is primarily plucking smaller quotes and trivial mentions from larger episode reviews, but a search through News, Books, and Scholar yielded very little. All I found was plot summary of the character's appearances and trivial, scattered mentions that don't amount to SIGCOV. The few hits I found that were even close to significant- and indeed the only coverage in the current article that is- are about the Yeti, creations of the Intelligence who somehow have more actual tangible discussion than the Intelligence. This character just lacks any form of significant coverage to justify a whole article, and per NOPAGE, I'd support a redirect or merge to the Yeti article, as they are the subject most closely associated with the Intelligence and thus the best place to put information regarding the Intelligence's character. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Serretta Wilson

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

Lacks independent SIGCOV. I searched EBSCO database, archive.org, and Google News. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, United Kingdom, and United States of America. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 09:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've searched several times, and I can't find any reliable sources to support notability. There may be sources offline, but unless they can be located, this article is not viable.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, she has had quite a few roles, and some people might remember her as Sergeant Wilson's daughter in Dad's Army. PatGallacher (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found a couple more sources. PatGallacher (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this Gloucestershire Echo piece is substantial enough. I have added that and another source to the article. More sources do exist. BD2412 T 18:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balvinder Singh Suri

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

No significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Badly sourced. Possible COI. Zuck28 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Raman Kumar

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

Lack of Wp:SIGCOV in secondary sources. Zuck28 (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, Maharashtra, and Punjab. Zuck28 (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Best I can find is this. And, that is more of him giving his opinion as opposed to a journalist writing about him. There is also a claim on the page that Tara (2013 film) is "considered one of the leading shows in Indian television history" except it has no Wikipedia page and I cannot find a source to support.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can not see any reliable source to meet subject's notability. Film's roles are also not big. Almandavi (talk) 05:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is not sufficiently notable. The RSes seem to be sparse and it fails WP:SIGCOV Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Amouna al-Mazyouna episodes

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

Completely unsourced episode list for a show that doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines on its own. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United Arab Emirates. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BuySomeApples, I have moved it back to the draftspace for now. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CF-501 Falcon: Please don't move articles to draftspace when it is already on AFD plus this is already draftified once thus a contensted draftification per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Miminity, Sorry. Will refrain from doing so in the future. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 13:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Potentially should share the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amouna al Mazyouna, bit the lack of referencing is an additional concern. Fails WP:GNG 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The show doesn't even have WP:GNG, this certainly doesn't jolielover♥talk 19:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amouna al Mazyouna

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

A WP:BEFORE search didn't find any reliable sources, although there might be better coverage in Arabic. This was moved out of AfC by the creator after a few rejections, and it just doesn't seem ready for mainspace. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Arab Emirates. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Fancruft and WP:ADMASQ. Picture appears tp be a copyvio. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arabic search found no high quality sources, all spammy websites. Fails WP:GNG jolielover♥talk 19:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One-off

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

Nothing more than a word definition, and Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. One-off (disambiguation) should be moved here. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not dictionary, does not show notability that would satisfy own page.Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom. It is just a regular word - not a significant notable word to have an article. Also, 3 of the cited sources have just the regular usage of word "one-off" (just like any other word) mentioned once or twice. Asteramellus (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also agree. WP:NOTDICTIONARY applies here. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is already an adequate entry in Wiktionary, merge is not neccesary.AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Products. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I could say more, but that explains it when it is so clear that the article covers a definition only. Wiktionary is where this belongs. Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kayla Jean Carter

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant sources to speak of. She didn't even win the Miss Charm Philippines beauty pageant, a title of very recent and somewhat dubious(?) existence. She was appointed when the titleholder withdrew. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, Philippines, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Mersey Pirate

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Mersey Pirate

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

You can't have it both way if this page goes which at least has a few ref https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tricky_(TV_series)_(2nd_nomination) then this page along with a few others have to go aswell since it has NO proper REF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 15:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Telegantic Megavision

AfDs for this article:

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

You can't have it both way if this page goes which at least has a few ref https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tricky_(TV_series)_(2nd_nomination) then this page along with a few others have to go aswell since it has NO proper REF. Its a shame but double standard cant not be allowed.. --Crazyseiko (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Saturday Show (1982 TV series)

AfDs for this article:

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

You can't have it both way if this page goes which at least has a few ref Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tricky (TV series) (2nd nomination) then this page along with a few others have to go aswell since it has NO proper REF. IT would be double standards.. --Crazyseiko (talk) 16:01, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is considered an illegitimate argument against deletion; is its converse valid for deletion? —Tamfang (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. It gets a little coverage in sources like A History of Television in 100 Programmes (2015) by Phil Norman and Screen Burn (2005) by Charlie Brooker but I didn't see enough to suggest that the subect is notable enough for its own article. I wouldn't be surprised if there are sources out there, please ping me if good ones are identified. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shakir Qureshi

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

This person lacks any sort of significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I also am not finding any independent sources for notability, I will say that there appear to be several other Shakir Qureshi's in the news for some not very nice things but I am not seeing anything about this guy. (opinion is open to change if sources are presented). Moritoriko (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I had CSD'ed the article, but the rationale wasn't right. There's no GNG met with any SIGCOV. Likely a promotional page mady by the subject themselves. — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:52, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Internet, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non notable. Promotional content. Seems like WP:COI and WP:PAID.

Afstromen (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional page with two sources that are unreliable, Twitter and Instagram. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 13:54, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to be promotional and not notable at all. There are no RSes to support it and it looks like something you would find on his website bolstering himself. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage from independent reliable sources to establish notability. Frank Ken (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional piece. WikiMentor01 (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent coverage found for this page. Also fails the WP:GNG. Sethi752 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. TheWikiholic (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not a social media platform. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gormogon (Bones)

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

A minor character in the Bones TV series. BEFORE turns up only reviews of episodes he featured in and a few scarce interviews; there is nothing actually discussing the impact, reception, or anything of this character. I'd suggest an AtD redirect to List of Bones characters. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Crime. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Current entry is just plot summary (WP:FANCRUFT that shows zero-level WP:GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Piotrus. Without significant coverage about its reception, this doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NOT. Redirect makes sense as an WP:ATD, where it can be mentioned in context of more appropriate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archangel from the Winter's End Chronicles

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

Lots of problems: first, subject fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:RS. One of the sources is "Nerdist," an unreliable source. Even if it was reliable, it's a piece about a kickstarter. The other source is a defunct self published site, and the last source is a niche magazine. It's also a human interest story. On to the most important part; the creator of the page seems to be affiliated with the subject, with the username matching the title and a COI message on the talk page. Fails WP:NOTPROMO, WP:COI, and finally, nobody wants to hear about your garage band. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Entertainment, Technology, Internet, and United States of America. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Gibson (writer)

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

Struggled to find any significant coverage of this guy in reliable sources. The 2004 Variety article is an announcement, and the 2003 one is a mere mention. No relevant hits in ProQuest, either. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Connecticut. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TVMSL

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

Article has remained unsourced for 15+ years, and I can't find any source that mentions or covers this project. Even the article on Alcatel does not mention this at all. If it exists and isn't a hoax, it's still clearly not notable (or verifiable) enough for an article.

Update: Sources found in DVB-SH#Project_organization. However, most of these sources are primary sources from Alcatel's website, and this still doesn't seem notable enough for its own article. ApexParagon (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

University of California Television

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

Non-notable subject; article just describes what the channel does. WP:BEFORE check showed no signs of RS/notability. Sources added since my PROD are both primary. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and California. StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As our friend @Wcquidditch: will likely state, this is an example of our looser standards in the late 2000s where any channel airing on a satellite or cable provider, be it national or public access had some pass at WP:N; sadly this lost that once Dish's public service commitment to carry diverse and educational content was wound down (especially in the 9400 tier, which was purposefully never promoted by them, outside the AMC Networks dispute where they put their channels there as a 'punishment', only to make their customers and the courts mad). It's still active for sure as a service online, but so many other universities do the same already, so this is a WP:MILL telecourse and channel promoting the university. Nathannah • 📮 22:10, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Reid

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

Largely not sourced, entirely plot summary. Character does not pass WP:GNG. From a search, lot of casting news, but that cannot sustain an article on a fictional character. Can redirect to the series or character article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The evidence doesn't really support notability, per WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Criminal Minds at an alternative to deletion per nom. ✗plicit 23:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the nominator that the article could use more sources and be restructured to not appear as a plot summary. However, that warrants editing and adding to the article, not deleting it. Spencer Reid is a notable figure, and he is frequently the topic of news articles. Here's just one example: https://www.today.com/popculture/dont-hold-your-breath-waiting-reid-seaver-hookup-criminal-minds-wbna41896074 DocZach (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a cast member interview and is not secondary. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall Song

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM. Sources in the article are promo, primary. WP:BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly. UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:RPRGM (itself an essay and not a formal SNG) has not mentioned TV programmes since 2021, but if I understand correctly, it used to say that programmes broadcast on national networks are likely to be notable. This one has been nationally broadcast for five years, so not sure how the nom's "fails WP:RPRGM" statement should be interpreted. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's an inherent difficulty in evaluating coverage of popular media in Thai entertainment reporting in terms of independence, as such coverage has traditionally made little distinction between original reporting and supplied material. Thairath, for example, has lots of episode recaps in its website tag for the programme[1], and though most of them read promotionally, there's also a critical news item[2] and even some discussion by the print edition's political columnist[3]. There was a flurry of news coverage when the programme's host was implicated in The iCon Group case leading to his termination[4][5][6], but even some of these appeared to be PR-based[7][8][9][10]. The most in-depth piece of coverage is this piece by web magazine The Cloud[11]. It's interview-based, but includes an introductory section of twelve sentence-length paragraphs in the writer's own voice that indicate source independence. Maybe consider rescoping to cover the franchise instead, since there's more English-language coverage about it[12][13], but then again most of it is from trade publications. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to !vote weak keep. The The Cloud piece is substantial enough to base an article on, and the other news mentions taken together help back that up. The Nataraja win is also an indicator of its significance. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Recipient of national major awards: Nataraja Awards (รางวัลนาฏราช, a top-tier award in Thailand) [14], TV Gold Awards (รางวัลโทรทัศน์ทองคำ, should be the most prestigious TV awards in Thailand) [15]. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis of the sources and awards provided here would be helpful in forming a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Elli (talk | contribs) 04:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaryn Gries

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

Only claim to notability is that she made bigoted comments on a reality TV show. WP:BLP1E and possibly other BLP concerns. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and United States of America. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 03:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created this a redirect to prevent it becoming an article back in 2013, with the edit summary, No article for you, racist. In spite of this, an article was created a couple of months later. Given that the controversy was in 2013, how does the nominator explain the 373,650 pageviews the article has received since July 1, 2015, which is as far back as the Pageviews Analysis tool goes? Abductive (reasoning) 04:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Popularity is not the same as notability: see WP:POPULARPAGE — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Internet, Colorado, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep admittedly this is my first time seeing this argument so I don't know if my interpretation of it was correct but one of the criteria for it seems to be " if the subjects role in the event isn't documented" and judging by the sourcing that doesn't seem to be the case multiple sources cover the controversy and some of them are years after it which seems to be lasting coverage. That said I'm new to this standard so if my analysis is wrong I'll change my vote Scooby453w (talk)
Delete as this article per nom meets the WP:BLP1E definition. All of the coverage is about the subject's appearance on the reality show Big Brother and racist comments she made. All sources with WP:SIGCOV are within a narrow time period in 2013. Sources that mention the subject since that time are only in passing. I searched and cannot find any additional sources for the subject other than the ones for this one event. Note page views are not a measure of Wikipedia notability. Nnev66 (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree i believe the subject does not meet 2 of the requirements for Wikipedia:BLP1E first she is not "low profile" https://www.instagram.com/aaryn_williams?igsh=MXNkY3g0MThhMHAxYQ== as she has a big following on social media secondley I concede that the sources are all about the racism however I believe it qualifys as "a significant event where the subjects role is well documented" there are dozens of reliable sources covering the bb15 controversy which was a one of the most massive controversies in bb historh and it goes well into detail about her involvement in it Scooby453w (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia "low profile" means the subject doesn't have independent secondary coverage in reliable sources over time. Instagram followers don't count as high profile for Wikipedia notability although in a more general sense one could make a case for it. I see your point around a "significant event" and different people will see any event's significance differently, which is why the consensus process is used here. Nonetheless, the main basis for my !vote was lack of significant coverage other than in the summer of 2013. I recently stumbled across WP:Why is BFDI not on Wikipedia? which discusses why a very popular YouTube series with billions of views that doesn't have a Wikipedia article - you may find this helpful for understanding policy. Nnev66 (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note i will still keep my vote the same (as i view the racism controversy as a significant event) but i wont site social media as a notability thing again Scooby453w (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I've spent about a year participating in AfD discussions and trying to figure out the policies. I'm glad you're here to weigh in and learn about them. Nnev66 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant event" usually means major historical events. The example at BLP1E is the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. I don't think being a controversial reality TV star is quite at that level. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with nom that this is WP:BIO1E and the subject is not lastingly notable beyond the one not-notable event. — 🌊PacificDepths (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big Brother 15 (American season). I agree that WP:BLP1E applies to this article. Significant portions of the "Pageantry and modeling career" and "Personal life" are sourced to Gries's LinkedIn (!) or Big Brother, which still comes up in those sections. A lot of the public reaction to the season has ended up in this article and should be merged into there. hinnk (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and redirect. Clear BLP1E case, no lasting notability. Astaire (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WRC Rally Magazine

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

This article clearly fails the Wikipedia Notability guidelines for TV. This is a TV show that seems to have been a one-off for the Monte Carlo Rally, lasting for just one season. This smells of promotion, too. There also aren't any citations, and there has been a citations tag since December 2009, 16 years ago. This article must be deleted. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Speed, cannot find anything substantive online Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 13:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Motorsport. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very WP:MILL pre-race show; just stated the latest results, did some profiles and previewed the next race, all of which are well expected and basic out of any pre-race show. And I agree with the nominator's PROMO concerns, as the article was created when it aired. Nathannah • 📮 18:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/others. Reluctant to redirect because it is a pretty generic title, and I'm sure that there are magazines (like the paper ones) about WRC. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WDNZ-LD

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

More OR slop from User:K-Johnson 127; non-notable LPTV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into WNKY. It’s a non-notable LPTV that’s better off going the way of WLHA-LD or KCWL-LD at best. (I copy&pasted this but it still works) --Danubeball

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Sources do not establish notability. Also nashvilledtvnews.info is a user generated content site. I question all the other places it is used on WP

Czarking0 (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge infobox and channel map, and technical details to WNKY Station existed as a license only by companies with no interest in actually broadcasting until 2019, when outside a little-watched 'TV on radio' simulcast that probably didn't even have WKCT as a viewer itself and someone plugging in the newspaper's daily YouTube video playlist into VLC to provide local news, it just carried a 'bouncing ball' mix of Antenna/MyNet and Biz TV content as a 'run for fun' station until Marquee bought it, professionalized it and programmed it as a WNKY extension. Not really a lot here and just a lot of fat (especially the details about WHAS 'interference', which if you know the rules of LPTV, it has to accept that interference no matter what anyways, and more care about Antenna TV's fate in the market than should be spent by an average person). A section about the technical details of WNKY-LD and WDNZ-LD is appropriate, but in a much reduced form. Nathannah • 📮 20:40, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WNKY-LD

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

More OR slop from User:K-Johnson 127; at least one self-published source. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into WNKY. It’s a non-notable LPTV that’s better off going the way of WLHA-LD or KCWL-LD at best. --Danubeball (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge infobox and channel map, and technical details to WNKY King Forward is a group that has never built out a serious TV station, so most of its history has been under Marquee as a testing translator to make sure everything worked (the main WNKY is on UHF on the same tower so it just duplicated the station at a lower power during its tests), then as an extended sister station to carry Ion and Weigel networks, outside Defy I getting replaced with Ion Plus as expected when that change was made, though under the ownership of a competent broadcaster rather than all automated by Innovate/HC2. A section about the technical details of WNKY-LD and WDNZ-LD is appropriate, but in a much reduced form. Nathannah • 📮 20:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohsen Afshani

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a procedural nomination. I declined the speedy tag this am, since the (dated) sources all date newer than the previous AfD (inappropriately closed as speedy delete by a non-admin closer). This latest incarnation is entirely sourced from Farsi outlets, so even with translation, I'm not comfortable with my own views on how direct the detailing is or how much is merely routine entertainment chatter. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Iran. BusterD (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hansen (pornographic actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

It doesn't seem like this one meets WP:GNG. The references are not SIGCOV and most of them don't seem like reliable sources. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't look like the sources are significant coverage, and while I don't know if this recreated version is significantly different from the previously deleted version, it seems that the previous deletion nomination closed with the same finding and it is unlikely that much changed. silviaASH (inquire within) 12:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Following sources seem to be coverage significant enough, considering he has been featured in DNA magazine and made headlines in AVN and XBIZ:

Bright, Richard (2006-08-17). "Porn Star Q&A: Brian Hansen". AVN.
"Meet Brian Hansen". Fleshbot. 2006-04-25.
"COLT Launches Buckshot Man Brian Hansen's Fan Site". XBIZ. 2007-02-06
"BRIAN HANSEN The life and times and pajamas of porn's latest superstar". DNA. No. 81. January 2006.
"Brian Hansen's Grabby Snatch". DNA Magazine #90. July 2007. p. 10. Retrieved 2025-04-20 – via Scribd.
Rice, G. Zisk (2010-01-08). "Buckshot Man Brian Hansen Returns in 'Lotus'". AVN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkavirya (talk • contribs) 12:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A cleanup could be done of unreliable sources, instead of deleting the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkavirya (talk • contribs) 13:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are too efficient (AVN) to justify keeping the article Iban14mxl (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes SIGCOV Madeline1805 (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. Needs coverage in more independent sources than AVN and DNA. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown (Victorious song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Zero in-depth coverage. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show. This article was previously redirected here in 2016; somebody recreated it this year but the song still doesn't appear to have enough notable coverage to justify its own page. MidnightMayhem 10:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: has multiple, reliable, and independent sources that talk about the song. [16] [17] [18] [19] Shoot for the Stars (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can tell you're passionate about this franchise, but so far I don't think you've demonstrated that this passes GNG. Of those sources, you've linked a blog post (unreliable), a user-generated poll (unreliable), and two news articles that say very little about the song other than that it exists. Where is the sourcing that describes any significant impact the song had or any coverage about its production other than who worked on it? MidnightMayhem 09:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Redirect the article to its album. Coverage of the song itself is not in-depth or does not come from reliable sources.Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show. I agree with the above discussion that this song has not received enough significant coverage in third-party, reliable sources to justify a separate article. I also agree with MidnightMayhem's comments above about the sources provided in this AfD, and I do not believe that the sources currently used in the article are enough to satisfy the general notability guideline. Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sahar Hashmi

AfDs for this article:

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

Back at AfD after the first resulted in speedy deletion. Back in the mainspace and while I attempted to clean up (even moved to draft to allow for cleanup but that was objected to) but there is nothing useful to create the page. For NACTOR, a person is not inherently notable for two lead roles - they still need the significant coverage showing such. Here, the references are unreliable, some based on the publication and the rest based on being non-bylined churnalism. CNMall41 (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 2 lead (ergo significant) roles in notable series, Zulm and Mann Mast Malang, thus meeting WP:NACTOR that states that actors "may be considered notable if" they had significant roles in notable productions. To pass WP:NACTOR, coverage is only needed to verify the importance of the roles in the notable productions. No notability guideline warrants "inherent notability" on WP: all of them, including WP:GNG mention a "presumption" of notability of some sort (presumed/may/likely, etc). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali Raza (actor), an AfD that I link here not for its outcome nor potential disagreements between given users but because it contains an extensive discussion about WP:NACTOR and WP:SNGs in general. In a nutshell: stating that subjects meeting any of the specific notability guidelines about notability "must first" (or "should also") meet GNG is an erroneous (albeit common) interpretation of what the guideline says. Meeting given specific requirements for notability can be considered sufficient, per consensus; that is why such guidelines exist; when the requirements of the applicable guideline are met, it can be agreed upon that the article may be retained. By the same token, those who don’t agree are obviously free to express their views but meeting specific requirements can be considered a good and sufficient reason to retain any page; in other words, in such cases, subjects don't need to also meet the general requirements. Even meeting them does not guarantee "inherently" an article, anyway.-Mushy Yank. 01:18, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Few things. The first is that although the AfD you linked here shows your contention that NACTOR is met with two main/lead roles, it also shows a divide amongst editors on how to interpret that. Note it closed as No Consensus with the closing admin noting that editors were divided in the assessment of NACTOR. However, the AfDs here and here where you asserted the same resulted in delete. While this does not establish consensus, it does show that editors do not share the same assessment. Note, I am not saying she must meet WP:GNG. I am saying she meets neither. Second, NACTOR is not met with two roles with "coverage is only needed to verify the importance of the roles in the notable productions." In fact, it says "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Here, the sources are junk. They are non-bylined coverage similar to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, churnalism, websites like Celebrity Networth, or are otherwise unreliable. If someone is worthy of notice, you would think they would have more than this type of simple coverage. It would be more significant where they would meet WP:NBASIC. Finally, one of the shows you claim is a notable series, you actually redirected based on notability. You only reverted in March of 2025 to help support your contention in the first AfD. Both shows I think are marginally notable at best as they also contain the same type of unreliable sourcing, although I will not nominate either during this AfD so as not to give the appearance of WP:DISRUPTIVE. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already replied to all this in the other AfD I linked precisely for that purpose, and in the precedent discussion about this actress. See there. -Mushy Yank. 07:53, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a pass of WP:NACTOR per Mushy Yank. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis of reliability of sourcing would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I see the passes of WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. 2 Lead and significant roles in notable television shows (Mann Mast Malang and Zulm). Misopatam (talk | contribs) 06:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Can you point out the coverage which is still required since WP:NACTOR is not a guideline for inherent notability?--CNMall41 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Confirming that articles don't need to meet both WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. But NACTOR isn't a guarantee, especially if sourcing is thin. Any additional thoughts/sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony T. Roberts

AfDs for this article:

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

Longstanding unsourced BLP. Cabayi (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Michigan. Cabayi (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
:Delete: This Article does not meets it's notability for mainspace and does not maintain reliable sources. Also it's has now 2nd nomination for Wikipedia:Article for deletion, therefore it should be deleted. Thanks KayVegas (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2025 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is my first time in a discussion like this so I'm not too sure how this all works but I concur with deleting this article there are only 2 sources one of which is the subjects own website which isn't reliable and a idmb page which just lists credits. speaking of which the credits themselves don't confer notability either as they appear to be mostly minor roles. Scooby453w (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

on a side note I looked at the previous afd which resulted in keep however it seems to have been solely based on the fact that he had an idmb page which I disagree with as I stated above Scooby453w (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was 2007...

Cabayi (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah that is my point perhaps a simple idmb bio was enough for an article back then but it seems the standards have been raised. Im not too familiar with the procces of what should and shouldn't be kept but it seems to me that articles with poor sourcing tend to get deleted Scooby453w (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mr. Box Office#Main Cast: but if existing sources seem OK for GNG, not fiercely opposed to Keep (a lot of coverage like https://www.dailynews.com/arts-and-entertainment/20140723/tony-roberts-brings-an-army-of-jokes-to-the-forum-for-komedy-xxplosion/ or https://www.royalgazette.com/other/lifestyle/article/20150402/comedians-will-have-you-in-stitches/ exists). (Does not seem to pass WP:NACTOR as the other roles are minor or in not clearly notable productions) -Mushy Yank. 21:26, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i could get behind a redirect Scooby453w (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced WP:BLP. I'm ok with a redirect, but only conditional on finding at least one reliable source. Bearian (talk) 05:44, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/bill-bellamy-jon-lovitz-vivica-fox-sitcom-keshia-knight-pulliam-gary-busey-byron-allen-321177/; https://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/mr-box-office/cast/1000570817/ -Mushy Yank. 22:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there's enough for WP:GNG - there's a full page article about him from 2014 in The Arizona Republic [20], and a good para from 2023 in The News Journal (Delaware) [21], and the LA Daily News article that Mushy Yank found does have biographical info in it, as well as bits of interview. Given that he's a stand-up comedian, redirecting to one show seems rather limiting. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per these sources ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to consider sources found relatively late in the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above votes; the sources provided above have convinced my to believe that the person is notable. ToadetteEdit (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 10:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Shaikh (actor)

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

The sources cover the person in brief and in a passing manner or using his citations primarily. No significant independent and multiple sources per GNG or ANYBIO. Cinder painter (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Repost of deleted and salted material: Salman Shaikh/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salman Shaikh. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pppery the nomination you mentioned was about 4 years ago and the subject of the article has from then, received significant roles in television and movies and also has received good amount of coverage from TOI and more sources. The title was salted because apart from this subject there were several more subjects with the same name trying to create articles on this title page. Knowledgedghoul (talk) 18:25, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has several lead roles in television and films, supporting roles and decent coverage. If you consider that there are tons of pages on Wikipedia which are kept having lesser coverage and work credits. Knowledgedghoul (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Knowledgedghoul (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP: NACTOR- various significant roles (recurring/supporting) in notable productions. -Mushy Yank. 19:37, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Salman Shaikh: meets WP: NACTOR with multiple significant roles in various notable shows. The actor has played several parallel and negative lead roles in various shows and currently playing the parallel lead in Pocket Mein Aasman.--Iamaninnocentsoul (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 20:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks WP:SIGCOV, most of the reference cited were from unreliable sources per WP:ICTFSOURCES. Needs more depth and coverage Imsaneikigai (talk) 07:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Imsaneikigai "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." [22], [23],[24], [25],[26] as per some of these mentioned sources in the article, you can clearly check that these are clearly not "Trivial mentions" but topic of the source material, as these are not just mentioning the subject but talking about it. So even after your cleanup of unreliable sources, there is clear Significant Coverage of the subject as per the guidelines. Knowledgedghoul (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can see enough references from significant coverage, The subject has roles in multiple featured films and Television series meets WP:ACTOR. B-Factor (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Reason I Can't Find My Love

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

Non-notable drama series that likely only has an article due to its use of songs by Namie Amuro. Both the English and Japanese versions of the article are almost completely unsourced. Performing a search for Japanese-language sources only results in product listings, streaming sites and forum posts, not reliable coverage. MidnightMayhem 06:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to prove its notability. Warriorglance(talk to me) 06:25, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found an article from Oricon stating that the first episode had a 17% nationwide viewership. Mantan Web reports that its final episode had an 18.4% nationwide viewership. It seems to have been highly viewed in Japan. lullabying (talk) 07:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: they're not nationwide viewerships, but overall viewerships in the Kanto region of Japan. lullabying (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Lullabying, which seem to provide notability for the minimum WP:BASIC criteria. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 06:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 17% viewership in Kanto (Japan's most populous region) as noted by above editors. DCsansei (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that WP:BASIC is a notability guidelines for people, and doesn't apply to the notability of TV shows. Also note that viewership numbers have never been valid proof of notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not seeing much evidence of WP:SIGCOV. 2 statistics websites that give viewership numbers of shows and a brief synopsis probably won’t cut it. ApexParagon (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oricon also publishes news articles about media. Here is a link to all the articles published about the television drama. lullabying (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 07:51, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shekinah TV

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

I am nominating this article for deletion as it Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable independent sources; WP:Before search did not find sufficient sourcing. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep the article and improve the references. Channel is available in most DTH (except SUN) and most Cable aggregators.
Anish Viswa 04:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to the points raised: Availability doesn't satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage in independent sources (see WP:NEXIST). The suggestion to improve sources falls under WP:HEY; the key is demonstrating such sources actually exist, which the WP:BEFORE search did not confirm. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the scroll.in piece referenced in the article does contain some analysis such as suggesting the tv channel is set up to promote positive news rather than the negative stories that have surfaced about the church, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: WP:GNG typically requires evidence from multiple independent, reliable sources providing such coverage to establish notability, or perhaps exceptionally deep coverage in a single source. My WP:BEFORE search didn't uncover other sources offering this level of independent analysis, suggesting this might be an isolated mention rather than evidence of wider significant coverage. Therefore, I maintain that the subject currently fails WP:GNG based on the overall sourcing found. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:SIGCOV. Although mentioned a little more in-depth in 2019 here and here, as well as in passing in 2024, I can not find any other sources at this point that can support a claim of notability. Furthermore, there are limited reliable sources that cover this channel, with the exception of The New Indian Express.— Angelita dela Rosa 22:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Upon searching for the subject, I found the following- A great mention here - [27], A great one here too - [28], and A little mention here:[29]. Therefore, no doubt about the credibility of the channel. The channel do have some WP: NOTABILITY and WP: RELIABILITY too but not significant enough. It does not have any more reliable sources at a direct search either. HilssaMansen19 (talk) 18:33, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

Television proposed deletions

Garage Gold (via WP:PROD on 11 April 2025)
L.A. Frock Stars (via WP:PROD on 11 April 2025)
Chiliopodarousa (via WP:PROD on 11 April 2025)
Find Me My Man (via WP:PROD on 10 April 2025)