Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television

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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television/archive
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television/archive 2
• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television/archive 3

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

• Comics and animation
• Anime and manga
• Fictional elements
• Actors and filmmakers
• Film

Television

Selective TV, Inc.

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Selective TV, Inc.
• Articles for deletion/Selective TV, Inc. (2nd nomination)

Selective TV, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject lacks the necessary coverage to meet the WP:NCORP. A 2010 AfD closed as no consensus but notability thresholds have changed significantly in the past 14 years. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Minnesota. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Alexandria, Minnesota#Television: this is probably the best available alternative to deletion here (the most substantive content, the table of stations, is basically already there), though given that this article is about a non-profit corporation and not necessarily the stations themselves I do not oppose outright deletion as a NCORP failure either. Even the long-abolished separate and looser inclusion standards for broadcast stations eventually frowned upon giving relays of other stations or national services (which is all Selective TV's stations do) articles for lack of separate notability. The "keep"s from 2010 don't appear to be what would be considered as "policy-guideline based" today, largely relying on the "FCC-licensed broadcast stations are presumed notable" stance that was finally put to bed after this 2021 RfC that pivoted to requiring significant coverage — but as this article really falls under NCORP rather than GNG, it falls under stricter standards that don't count purely-local or most trade coverage toward notability (and the lone "delete" from the 2010 nomination, noting the lack of SIGCOV, does express a view that is more in line with 2024 standards than was usually seen in the broadcasting topic area 14 years ago). In the end, this is a remnant of the looser standards of 2010 — and the "no consensus" suggests that any perceived "notability" was the bare minimum at most. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

2019 FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasting rights

2019 FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasting rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to the small minority of ardent fans. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE. As with sources per WP:RS; the one that covers it all are WP:PRIMARY and announcments, not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Merge significant markets to 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup#Broadcasting to retain consistency with other FWWC articles. The separate list is nothing more than an indiscriminate collection of information simply for the sake of collecting that information. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

BBC Choice

BBC Choice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

BBC Three was BBC Choice until 2003 Coddlebean (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coddlebean (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Coddlebean, I don't understand your deletion rationale. Can you explain why we should delete the BBC Choice page? Toughpigs (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The main problem I have with the article is that all of the sources given are to the BBC. If some decent independent secondary sources can be added then OK. Athel cb (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as a cursory view of Google Scholar shows this appears to have received non-BBC coverage. If a detailed review proves that insufficient and no other independent RS'es are identified, then merge to BBC three. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Droners

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Droners
• Articles for deletion/Droners (2nd nomination)

Droners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022.

None of the other 6 language articles appears to have any citations that can be used to establish notability.

Previous AfD ended in no consensus, so I am trying again to determine if this is notable and should be kept, or if it isn't and should be deleted or redirected. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, and France. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:41, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Cyber Group Studios#Animated televiision series (is possible but rather) keep as it was broadcast internationally on major networks and existing coverage online allows to verify it. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC) (Edited to change from R to K; -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC))
• Comment: This Variety article says: "“Droners” proved a hit for French broadcaster TF1, leading it and Germany’s WDR to quickly greenlight Season 2, Mathieu noted. The show has also gone to Disney for a second window in France as well as to JEI TV in South Korea." It's likely that there's coverage in French media, if anyone can find it. Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, found and added some (you need to search hard because a lot of primary sources come first; and I didn't search that hard but given the broadcast and sources found, I'd rather keep this; thanks-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC))

James Cade

James Cade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable. A series of film and theatre reviews in which Cade is mentioned as a cast member do not constitute significant coverage. Searches for sources produce more of the same. — HTGS (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — HTGS (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Theatre, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: I think this one is an obvious keep. The subject person has taken part in numerous films, series, and theatre plays. For films, he had notable roles in Antiviral and Stardust, both of which were mentioned in multiple sources (see Toronto Sun[1] and IndieWire[2] for Antiviral; GQ[3] and The Hollywood Reporter[4] for Stardust). For TV, he was credited in a main role in Gangland Undercover (see Comingsoon.net[5]) and The Big Cigar (see The Economic Times[6] and The Hollywood Reporter[7]), as well as a recurring role in Blue Mountain State (see Screen Rant[8] and TheWrap[9]). For plays, the article already mentioned that he co-led the Dora Award-winning A Quiet Place, and I also found that he had a lead role in Free as Injuns, supported by reviews from The Globe and Mail[10] and National Post[11] which praised the subject person's performance. Obviously fulfills WP:NACTOR#1. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 07:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with at least two roles easily identifiable as significant (in Stardust and Blue MS) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Let's Get Physical, Gangland Undercover, Cascade and Blue Mountain State. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

N-Toons (French TV programming block)

N-Toons (French TV programming block) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This currently non-notable article lacks sources to pass GNG, WP:NMEDIA and NTV. Listed this as a CDS G2 (Test edit) which was reverted, so listing it here. This has to go! Intrisit (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Carolinas Sports Entertainment Television

Carolinas Sports Entertainment Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG; no sources; notable only on local level. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, Basketball, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment Outright deletion does not seem necessary, since this could at least be a redirect to one of several articles (like Charlotte Hornets, where the network is already discussed in the media coverage section). The basic facts of the network's existence are easily verifiable by a quick look in Google Books. I suspect that this article does have potential beyond a redirect, since the network served a major media market and carried an NBA team, albeit briefly. Zagalejo (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: There appears to be enough coverage to support a standalone article on the subject, such as [[12]], [[13]], [[14]], [[15]], and [[16]] just for starters. I'd say this meets the WP:GNG, but at the very least this should be redirected. Let'srun (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Fleur Revell

Fleur Revell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There's not much significant coverage of Fleur Revell published in multiple secondary and reliable sources. None of the conditions outlined in the notability guideline for creative professionals apply in her case. There are many articles that mention her in the context of her affair but it isn't significant coverage. She has supposedly won 3 Qantas awards yet there is no evidence of that online and the claim is unreferenced. There might be proof in print and not online since she probably received them in the 90's. If that cannot be proved, there is not much to base her notability on. Certainly not the affair. Ynsfial (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Independent reliable sources with significant coverage exist but they are largely off-line publications from 1990s. I have added several such off-line citations.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: not enough significant coverage EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep You don’t win three Qantas Media Awards without getting some attention. That happened at a time for which we have few online sources, though. Schwede66 19:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete, some of the sourcing amounts to OR. Interviews don't establish notability. Only source that can establish notability is this article: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/no-idea-what-next-for-fleur/NHVADVZ4KX5NZRLJFUHGB3PUBA/ The rest of the sources being not about her, interviews, or non-independent PR releases, and I fail to see GNG being met. I'd even argue the Qantas Media Awards fail GNG too, don't really see any independent coverage of that either. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep there is some relatively negative reporting around her relationship with Paul Holmes in a couple of national newspapers and her departure from New Idea is also covered. I think more work needs to be done researching her and agree with Swede's view that her attaining three Qantas Media awards, in itsself, is sufficient to meet notability. I accept that a reference to properly establish this is necessary but that will take some time and research as the papers of the time are not online. NealeWellington (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Roll No 21

Roll No 21 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG, It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. It does not have in-depth analysis or substantial coverage in reputable publications. The references cited are primarily primary sources or do not offer the necessary independent verification of the show's notability. M S Hassan (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Article in The Hindu. Award. One of the first Indian original production of Cartoon Network. Maybe that would have deserved a more elaborate rationale for deletion this time? See also https://showtimepandit.com/roll-no-21-shocking-story-behind-its-downfall/ (expert "blog"); mentioned here (see table) https://www.business-standard.com/article/specials/tv-shows-for-kids-enter-golden-age-in-india-116101700922_1.html. Absolutely opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have elaborated the rationale for deletion, Thank you for your feedback. M S Hassan (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! I think the article in The Hindu is both in-depth and independent, though, and it's a pretty reputable newspaper. The program has received an award and multiple sources describe it as very popular (see above, or this) and significant. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:52, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: passes WP:NTV and is a reputed and notable series. Imsaneikigai (talk) 11:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Can You Duet

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Can You Duet
• Articles for deletion/Can You Duet (2nd nomination)

Can You Duet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article appears to fail WP:GNG. A merge to a page of lists List of programs broadcast by CMT was suggested, but that is simply a page with a list of articles...it does not have details on any of the articles within its paramaters. Therefore, I do not feel it is an appropriate target for a MERGE. I did REDIRECT the page there, but that was reversed. I would only support a MERGE if there was an appropriate page to add any info to, but currently I can not identify any. Therefore, a deletion of the article is the only outcome, unless independent notability can be established. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The show ended in 2008, so whatever sources were listed in the last AfD are probably all you'll find. They're ok, not super-extensive, but enough to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  or merge a relevant section in the network's article, I'm not fussed about it. I don't think it should be deleted, we seem to have enough sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: As per the above, this show aired 16 years ago, so granted the majority of sources are likely dead-linked or no longer exist on the web, but the show was definitely notable at the time of the page's creation and produced several country acts with varying success, had a panel and hosts who were reputable insiders in the industry, and was a program aired on a prominent TV station. It's also bizarre that there was considerable discussion surrounding keeping at least some of the information on this show and merging it onto another page, but instead of anyone doing that, someone hastily took matters into their own hands months later and just blanket-deleted the whole page. I also see a lot of content listed on the page that could (and should) easily have sources added to it that just... isn't there for whatever reason. CloversMallRat (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Here's a Common Sense Media review [17] and one discussion of a performer [18]. It's not a slam dunk, but Common Sense review is a RS. The rest help too; Common Sense, Variety and Billboard should be enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  And here's one about the winner: [19]. We have enough for at least a basic article about the show and the winners. Oaktree b (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you! The article doesn't need to be big and grandiose to remain on Wikipedia. There are enough sources to make it notable and relevant, but the show aired 16 years ago and the Internet doesn't just keep articles around forever. I remember when it aired, it was quite an ordeal at the time in the country music sphere. I'm sure it would've been sourced out the wazoo if we had the resources we have now with how much media content is all over now vs. back then. People were barely even using Facebook in 2008. But we can't go back in time. I do think the article needs cleaned up a bit, I will say that. There's definitely a way to make some of the content read better, i.e. CloversMallRat (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how the discussion veered off onto a talk page, in a addition to the one here, but the last discussion had the sourced discussed by Ten Pound Hammer. Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Vir: The Robot Boy

Vir: The Robot Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Hungama_TV#Animated_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Arjun – Prince of Bali

Arjun – Prince of Bali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete, fails all notability guidelines. While the before search turned up nothing useful, the existing four sources in the article are not reliable. The first source in the article which does not appear reliable is just two short paragraphs and it is about a game developed to popularise the the series. The other three sources are from a single publisher with lengthy quotes from the producers themselves without an independent review. Piscili (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. Owen× ☎ 13:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Redirect to Chhota Bheem and the Throne of Bali for example if sources on the page are not judged sufficient, and for example, also see https://www.afaqs.com/news/media/44417_game-for-disneys-new-show-arjun-the-prince-of-bali ; (https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tv/chhota-bheem-gets-musical/articleshow/63977507.cms (brief mention)); 3 years on Disney Channel... Opposed to deletion -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Extreme Engineering

Extreme Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2017. Nothing to support notability was found in a BEFORE. Checking the other languages pages, several of them have 0 citations. The ones that did, they are not independent/in depth enough for notability support. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Architecture, Science, Engineering, and United States of America. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Various sites to stream the show, a Fandom wiki and mentions of extremes in engineering unrelated to the TV show are about all I can find for sourcing. Rotten Tomatoes has no reviews, nothing... I don't see notability as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Strauss, Gary (2007-08-14). "He engineered himself a job - 'Build It Bigger' host loves his Discovery gig". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.

     The article notes: "Forster, an architect and erstwhile stand-up comic with no TV experience, sent a three-minute audition tape that led to his hiring last year on Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering, a series that became this season's Build It Bigger (tonight, 10 ET/PT). Bigger kicked off the first of 14 episodes in July, with Forster checking out the engineering behind roller coasters. He also has traveled to sites ranging from an Alabama plant that refurbishes Abrams battle tanks to the 100-story-plus World Financial Center, one of the world's tallest buildings, under construction in Shanghai."

  2. Ashby, Emily (2023-06-19). "Parents' Guide to Build It Bigger". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.

     The review notes: "That said, the show lacks any special pizzazz, so it probably won't be a must-watch for most kids. But tweens and teens with an interest in engineering or heavy machinery may be intrigued to watch their practical application in the real world. As for content, it's all fairly benign, but keep an ear out for some (bleeped) strong language and plenty of talk about the life-threatening hazards that accompany work on jobs like these."

  3. Filucci, Sierra (2022-10-13). "Parents' Guide to Extreme Engineering". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.

     The review notes: "Though Forster attempts to build excitement through each project's many steps, some episodes are less interesting than others. For example, one that detailed an extremely complicated Swedish project called the Hallandsas Ridge Tunnel is dull despite the narrator's enthusiasm and the pre-commercial break cliffhangers (what will happen after the dynamite blast to that wall?!)."

  4. Johnson, Eric (2004-07-28). "Long Beach Port Called Extreme - Television: Discovery Channel Airing Documentary on Our Seaport tonight.long Beach Port Called Extreme - Television: Discovery Channel Airing Documentary on Our Seaport Tonight". Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.

     The article notes: "The Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering series chronicles engineering feats on a massive scale. Things don't get much more massive or extreme than at the Port of Long Beach, which is why a filming crew for the channel spent a week in March documenting an average day at one of the world's busiest ports. ... Other shows in the Extreme Engineering series document construction of the new Bay Bridge in San Francisco and the "turning torso" building in Denmark, which resembles a male figure turning at the waist."

  5. Bellman, Annmaree (2004-11-18). "Pay TV - Thursday". The Age. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.

     The review notes: "This episode of the engaging series follows the week of one crew and their bosses, from high-rise dangers to nights on the town. The engineering is amazing, the building rising due to a massive automated structure that hauls itself up each completed floor to provide the basis for the next. It's the 21-man crew that makes it happen, though, and in frigid temperatures and strong winds. The narrator plays the "descendants of Vikings" card too often, but it's a great look at extreme building and its practitioners."

  6. Del Gandio, Jason (2014). "Performing Nonhuman Liberation: How the ALF and ELF Rupture the Political Imagination". In Besel, Richard D.; Blau, Jnan A. (eds.). Performance on Behalf of the Environment. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-7391-7498-2. Retrieved 2024-06-14 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "Discovery also airs Build it Bigger, a show that depicts massive, breathtaking feats of engineering. This show—as a discursive phenomenon—subtly contributes to the masculine, patriarchal, and even quasi-imperialistic practices of "bigger is better" and "expansion is progress." It also ignores issues of population displacement and the extinction of indigenous practices and knowledges caused by urban sprawl."

  7. Jergler, Don (2004-07-15). "Digest: Cable Show to Highlight Port of L.B." Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.

     The article notes: "Discovery's Extreme Engineering series is produced by Powderhouse Productions of Somerville, Mass. Production crews filmed at the Total Terminals International container terminal on Terminal Island, a 375-acre facility that is the Port's largest shipping terminal, and one of the largest such facilities in the world."

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Extreme Engineering, also known as Build It Bigger, to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

KSKJ-CD

KSKJ-CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: Another LPTV with mostly national programming and little-to-no significant coverage to speak of, which is of little surprise for an eventual HC2/Innovate station. A remnant of the looser inclusion standards of 2006, and yet another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles from 2023. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Michael Aarons

Michael Aarons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional bio with COI issues. Entirely void of reliable sources—removing uncited BLP content would leave the article blank. Other than IBDB and Playbill credits, the only source I can see mentioning Aarons at all is a passing reference in the NYT. Probably borderline A7. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Theatre. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 21:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. I cannot find significant coverage of this musician outside of irregular mentions in various Broadway blog sites, and I see nothing in the article which would suggest notability.Spiralwidget (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I have removed the obvious WP:PROMO and WP:PEACOCK. IBDB confirms that he played the guitar in at least 10 Broadway productions from 2004 to at least 2018, and has served as musical coordinator for more than two dozen Broadway productions since 2014. I don't think these roles necessarily convey notability, but just pointing out that the info in his article is now at least partly easy to verify. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Here is a link to AllMusic where it lists credits:

https://www.allmusic.com/artist/michael-aarons-mn0000547167#credits

More sources for Film and TV on IMDB.com

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0007497/?ref_=fn_al_nm_2 108.53.237.198 (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• (Speedy) delete No indication of notability - fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:BASIC. Completely unsourced BLP. C F A 💬 00:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Here are some other articles:

https://guitarcenterprofessional.blogspot.com/2016/05/

https://www.local802afm.org/allegro/articles/how-do-i-get-a-gig-on-broadway/ 108.53.237.198 (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Advertising, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fail WP:MUSICBIO AND WP:GNG. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Per the multiple issues identified by editors above. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Namak Haram

Namak Haram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Prod'd by TheTechie - I also couldn't find sign/in-depth coverage so fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: .....I DPD it (2h ago, maybe) and added sources and commented "redirect it if you think it's insufficient". But here we are. I personally think coverage is enough to show it's notable. Again, redirect (production/network) might be an option but it seems unnecessary. Opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Mushy Yank, Can you please provide policy-based reasons for keeping this page ? — Saqib (talk) 18:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

    Forced to quote my own !vote then, to satisfy your request: "added sources. (....). I personally think coverage is enough to show it's notable." -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Courtesy @Mach61:, who reviewed the page at AFC.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:06, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment - I will reserve a !vote for now as I am on the fence and hoping someone can opine to clarify. The entire page is made up of brief mentions, non-independent sources, or WP:NEWSORGINDIA with the EXCEPTION of this, this, and this. What I am wondering is the reliability of these publications. I know there have been questions about Youlin and I lean towards not using it. However, this could be salvaged should the other two found to be reliable publications. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • CNMall41, ProPakistani/Lens is WP:GUNREL. Dawn call it a local blog or a telecom blog. The Express Tribune also called it telecom and IT blog and a technology blog. BBC also called it a Technology blog. In this interview CEO of ProPakistani - who also runs a PR agency - is suggesting that ProPakistani, do accept PRs as part of their content strategy. While PakistaniCinema is clearly a WP:SELFPUB. — Saqib (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The term "blog" can always be used lightly. What Wikipedia considers a "blog" is sometimes a reliable source. See WP:NEWSBLOG. The question is whether there is editorial oversight. Lens (ProPakistani.pk) has editors listed on the site but no editorial policy that I can find so that is up in the air in my opinion, especially since they accept PR content and I cannot determine which is which as there is nothing I see on the site that distinguishes things apart. The fact that it is itself covered by other news publications (the ones you mentioned above) does tend to lend credibility to the site however, and the domain is 20 years old so it isn't a recent startup set up simply for publicity (such as boxofficeadda.com which had been spamming Wikipedia). PakistaniCinema is seven years old yet I do not see any editorial guidelines there either. There are articles on the site that are marked "Web Desk" so those clearly fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, but there are many that are bylined as well. The problem is the byline is just a name and there is no bio associated with it anywhere on the site which raises a red flag. Maybe these should both go to RSN for opinions. Can anyone point out a few references that ARE easily distinguishable as reliable? --CNMall41 (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

CNMall41, Wait, many RS even cite the UK's Daily Mail, but does that make Daily Mail a RS? No.. Similarly, just because some Pakistani RS may have cited ProPakistani doesn't automatically mean we assume latter's credibility. So as I said ProPakistani engages in a lot of PR activities. Its owner, Shayan Mahmud, also owns a advertising/PR agency, also raises concerns about the credibility of ProPakistani which IMO operating more like a PR agency than a news website. Anyone could pay them to publish articles. For what it's worth, Lens is an offshoot of ProPakistani, and their brief about us mentions their engagement in publishing celebrity gossip news as well. And did I mention, ProPakistani have a history of publishing fake news for the sake of clicks. That being said, ProPakistani should definitely be taken to the RSN for further evaluation. — Saqib (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Please re-read what I wrote. Your comparison to Daily Mail is not in the same realm of what I said. I said it lends credibility, not establishes reliability. And, there are more than Pakistani sources that talk about including this from the BBC which you yourself cited. My point is that a "blog" which is talked about in the media isn't a minor thing. I have a personal blog but it has never been talked about in the media. So again, lends credibility, not reliable. Hence why I said it may be something for the RSN. I would recommend that you as the nominator go to RSN with these and get feedback on the reliability. As far as "Anyone could pay them to publish articles," this is a false statement. We can verify that they allow paid placements, but that doesn't mean that allow anyone to do it or that ALL of the cite is paid. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep meets WP:GNG. There is enough coverage in highly reliable DAWN ([20], [21], [22]), [23]). Youlin (online magazine focused on Pakistani culture-related topics) article was written by Saman Khalid. Category:Online magazines with defunct print editions is the future and there is no requirement for a publication to run print edition to be considered as reilable. On a side note, Saqib's AfDs are unfortunately borderline problematic and are deterring editors from participating. They are quickly losing credibility, and if this deletionist behavior continues—dismissing legitimate sources with terms like WP:ROTM despite clear reliability with proper bylines—admin sanctions/TBAN may soon be necessary. 2A04:4A43:894F:FFA2:9DD1:4FF1:C856:2226 (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Imperium (film series)

Imperium (film series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article is unsourced. I don't see why this topic deserves an article as there are no sources on the Imperium series, only sources on the individual movies. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, History, and Romania. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Why was this sorted in the Romania-related discussions? Some of the production companies involved are Spanish/German/French but I see no participation of Romanian actors or producers. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:45, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The answer to the nom's implicit question is that Wikipedia:Notability, right at the top, says that we can merge up articles into a bigger subject. See also Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Should NBOOK cover series or just individual books?, which has almost 150 comments on a closely related subject. See statements like "Where a source contains coverage of one of the books in a series of books, this coverage is deemed to be coverage of the series of books, in addition to being coverage of that book" and "Articles on book series may be created in some cases where there are no series-level sources, drawing on the sourcing of the individual books." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, what outcome are you arguing for? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not wrong I'm pretty sure he's saying that keep is the answer, even though what he's talking about is the Notability for books. MK at your service. 03:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing indicates in her preferences that she would like to be referred to as she. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

True, but if you don't have WP:NAVPOPS installed, it's not usually convenient to look up those settings. Innocent mistakes never bother me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

@Liz, I'm not sure whether it should be kept and converted to an article (e.g., adding paragraphs and sources), kept as a WP:SETINDEX, or converted to a WP:DAB page. But I don't think overall that we solve any problems by deleting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, last hope for some more participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Although the series is a loose one, the miniseries that are part of the set are all RAI productions and seem to be part of the same project indeed. I favour a keep, as the page helps navigation as a disambiguation page does. I would rename it but not sure how, because most of the "films" were broadcast as miniseries... Imperium (miniseries series) would be a terrible name! Imperium (TV productions)? Sources would not hurt either. Would redirect and merge to/into Imperium (disambiguation) be a suitable WP:ATD?? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Italy, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, France, Germany, and Spain. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as a list of related topics that all have articles, therefore useful for navigation. Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as a useful navigation list, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Jirahs

Jirahs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails notability guidelines. Tried to do a WP:BEFORE search, but found zero sigcov. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 06:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to Ultraman or a to-be-created villains/characters article where individually NN fictional elements like this can be curated appropriately. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Gomora (kaiju)

Gomora (kaiju) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails notability guidelines. Tried to do a WP:BEFORE search, but found zero sigcov. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 05:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Jerry Newton

Jerry Newton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article seems to attempt to inherit notability from Wayne Newton, Jerry's younger brother. WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Checking the references is challenging. Jerry does appear, generally with reference to the sibling, and as a passing reference to Jerry. The article seems to be more a tribute (WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies) than anything else. Jerry was obviously notable to those who loved and respected him, but the references do not show a pass of any of WP:BIO, WP:NMUSICIAN, nor WP:NACTOR. Releasing records does not mean notability, nor does a bit part in an episode of Bonanza where he is listed as a cast member, but his part was not a named character. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and United States of America. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - I agree with the nominator, as Jerry had a minor career as an entertainer but with no achievements on his own that satisfy our notability requirements. He is only mentioned briefly in sources about his much more famous brother. This article is probably an attempted memorial. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NOTMEMORIAL certainly and his career is alongside his brother, then minor bit parts and a lawsuit...— Iadmc♫^talk  20:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: Jerry is mentioned in Wayne Newton § Early years, but that doesn't really look promising as a redirect target. Maybe a suitable Fandom/Miraheze site can accept what currently passes for this brother's article? (Disclaimer: A recent Teahouse thread brought me here.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wayne Newton. There's potential for five extra articles that can have him as a redirect. Simple solution and we can also preserve the history as well. Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Radio, Television, Nevada, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

KOHC-CD

KOHC-CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no significant coverage of this station, even as a low-power TV station in the 1990s, after an extensive search. It should be redirected to the national list at List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oklahoma. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: A remnant of the looser, more existence-based inclusion standards of 2007 — but in 2024, we need significant coverage, and that seems not to be present here (never a complete surprise for an HC2/Innovate station where at least the past 17 years are all national full-time services). Notability concerns are not a completely new issue for this station — it's another nominal survivor of a bulk nomination of many HC2/Innovate station articles from 2023. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp. per WCQuiddich. Nate • (chatter) 20:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect, though it’s super eerie that literally NOTHING exists of this station’s early history, especially when it seems to have likely aired it’s own programming, separate from a major network or TBN. Danubeball (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

AKA Mr. Chow

AKA Mr. Chow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No clear evidence or assertion of notability. Article has previously been recreated, which I redirected to subject, and again a second time, which was disputed by creator, hence ending up at AfD.

References offered only prove show exists and that subject themselves is notable (as they have their own article), but a show about them is not in itself necessarily notable in its own right. In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Business. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but the following statement is almost bizarre: In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. .....???? .... Documentary films that are not series MAY be notable, most evidently.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: At least one of the current refs is clearly about the movie — the Hollywood Reporter article is called "Michael Chow Shares the Pain Behind the Glamour in New Documentary ‘AKA Mr. Chow’". There's also a Wall Street Journal review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review: Portrait of the Artist as a Restaurateur", and a Beverly Hills Courier review called "‘AKA Mr. Chow’—But Who is ‘M?’" Toughpigs (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  My thoughts on this really are that this is a documentary programme, not a film, so we aren't looking at notability in necessarily the same way. The documentary is about the subject, who is notable, whereas a film article would be expected to assert notability in its own right (like a tv episode, series etc). The question really is whether the actual documentary series is notable in its own right, irrespective that it covers (and is biographical in its nature) a subject who we know is notable.

  My view on the sources largely are that they are really useful in expanding the article on the individual, but I can't be sure if they assert notability to have a standalone article for a 90min documentary programme. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  a documentary programme, not a film....hmmm.....yes, this a documentary film. (it's available on HBO but that does not make it a non-film)...and yes, it's notable "in its own right" as multiple reviews and a lot of very significant coverage addressing the subject in depth and directly in extremely notable reliable (and independent) sources prove it. Kindly have a look at the sources that have been added and check the rest of the existing ones, thank you. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Selena Gomez: My Mind & Me is also a documentary; so is Madonna: Truth or Dare. I'm not making an "other stuff exists" argument, just saying that there is no precedent for judging a documentary as non-notable just because it's about a notable subject. Notability is not un-inherited. As for the sources, as I said, there is a Wall Street Journal review that begins with the phrase "‘AKA Mr. Chow’ Review". Why doesn't that count? Toughpigs (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed, the 2 reviews in WSJ and Guardian should be enough to keep ANY film, and here we have 5-10 times that. (The reviews can ALSO be used to expand the bio of Chow, but that does not diminish the notability of the film according to WP requirements). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• (Keep): I didn't search and only the sources that the page currently ha(d)s, but they seem(ed) to be sufficient to show it's notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC) Did search 3 minutes. Added some. See for yourself. Changing to STRONG KEEP.
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Michael Chow (restaurateur) while there is nothing at all in the article. The sources are about the individual really and only mention the documentary as part of an interview or, worse, as a fact of existence, except the Hollywood Reporter article as mentioned. No need for a separate article— Iadmc♫^talk  12:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Leaning towards keep. The article at least has some substance now. Will watch. — Iadmc♫^talk  15:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Keep article is now well sourced to establish notabilty and I have added quotes to it— Iadmc♫^talk  18:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect I don't see the need for a standalone article at this point. Reywas92^Talk 13:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note to nominator@Bungle:: Have you really checked existing sources??? also @Iadmc and Reywas92: Reviews and significant coverage in WSJ, Decider, Guardian, NYT, etc, etc...I'm inviting you to kindly withdraw this nomination. Added some to the page. - Feel free to add more! My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd firstly note that edit summaries/comments such as No evidence a BEFORE was indeed performed and Have you really checked existing sources???, do not feel like an assumption of good faith, and is a tone to perhaps reflect upon in future. My concerns where not through a lack of media coverage, as outlined. That said, regardless of my own view, consensus seems to be towards retaining, even though I still feel there is a credible case to rd or merge into the subject's article where it's barely mentioned, given it's broadly a collection of journalists' opinions and referencing overuse. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  What is broadly a collection of journalists' opinions according to you? If it's the sources added to the page, it seems to be another way for acknowledging the existence of LOTS of reviews, which you may have seen or read during your BEFORE, as apparently you consider that you have done one, which I indeed seriously doubted, for which I apologise since you seem to indicate you have and honestly did everything in your power to find sources ("If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." said WP:BEFORE, and you are apparently telling me that you did. I will therefore assume that it's true.) and found "No clear evidence or assertion of notability".

  I don't think my tone was nasty, and it was sincerely not meant in a nasty way, but I did seriously doubt that you made a BEFORE at all (not questioning your general good faith but the fact that you really spent time checking sources), yes, and I am still surprised that a film with so many reviews was taken to Afd, when you could have just added the reviews that apparently you had seen and read (but that you did not even mention, btw) as GNG, NFILM, etc. are obviously and more than fairly met.

  I was not expecting thanks for presenting various sources that you may have seen during that BEFORE but if a film is reviewed in so many extremely reliable sources, your concern did and does not seem justified, nor does this Afd, for that matter, and calling additional sources that you are telling me you saw but failed to simply mention, even in a general statement (like "I have seen reviews in WSJ, Guardian, Decider, etc. during my BEFORE but think they're not enough for notability of a standalone page", "Despite a lot of media coverage found in my BEFORE, my concern is that it is not enough to warrant an article and etc." or smth of the kind), referencing overuse (unless you are, again, not referring to this article but to the one about Chow) is not exactly the response I was hoping, to be, again, perfectly honest with you. I take it you won't withdraw, then. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  That is a lot of text to try and absorb, but i'll say I didn't say anything was "nasty", and I do admire your determination. That said, while I remain unconvinced that we should have, or need, a separate article for this (when on the basis of existing content, I feel it would be better suited being mentioned on the subject's article), I respect the consensus view that is to the contrary, so it seems fruitless at this stage to consider anything other than a withdrawal. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, China, and United Kingdom. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Architecture. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep article has plenty of reliable sources. Eric Carpenter (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as the article know has referenced reviews from reliable sources such as The Guardian, Toronto Star, The Decider and therefore passes WP:NFILM in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The reviews in WSJ, Beverly Hills Courier, Toronto Star and MovieWeb are enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, per above, plenty of good sources exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

WHPS-CD

WHPS-CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject does not meet the GNG. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Michigan. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Its complicated: Sammi Brie actually has local WP:SIGCOV material for this station, from newspapers. At the same time, I don't know how to actually put the sources in. mer764KCTV5 / Cospaw (He/Him | Talk • Contributions) 15:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy close. This nomination appears to be the result of a content dispute. (SN: I am not involved in the dispute nor have I ever heard of this TV station; but I read the article and although it could stand a rewrite, the station seems notable, IMO.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  This nomination has nothing to do with the content dispute involving Baltimore stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep I will vouch that the content dispute has nothing to do with the slow drip of AfDs of non-notable low-power TV stations. I will also vouch this one shouldn't be tossed with them. Substantial local SIGCOV exists for this one. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

References

• Keep per sources. Danubeball (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Cleveland Brown Jr.

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Cleveland Brown Jr.
• Articles for deletion/Cleveland Brown Jr. (2nd nomination)

Cleveland Brown Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Inspector Chingum

Inspector Chingum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Added a few things. If judged insufficient, redirect to Motu Patlu#Recurring. Again, I am inviting the nominator to PLEASE slow down nominations of Indian animated series or to directly and boldly redirect them to obvious related articles if they think apparent notability issues need to be addressed urgently. THANK YOU. Taking a page to Afd with a minimal rationale may take some time but checking sources, improving the page, verifying potential targets, etc, also does. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  I prefer not to boldly redirect articles to other articles because I believe in the significance of discussion and reaching consensus. M S Hassan (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough! Thank you for your comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. I would not redirect to Motu Patlu#Recurring because that page segment too has no sources, no inline citation and possibly contains original research. I would have redirect to the production company if they had a page with this spin-off in the list of production. Reviewing the sources, the indepth coverage is insufficient and fails general notability guideline. RangersRus (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

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

S.A.L.E.M.: The Secret Archive of Legends, Enchantments, and Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sourcing for this page is strong enough to keep, so for now I'm going to say weak keep. But, if it comes down to it, I'd be fine turning it into a redirect to Swampy Marsh, but... deleting this page outright would be a disservice to those who worked on the page, so a redirect would be my second choice. Historyday01 (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

I can agree, that's why I stand by saying weak keep and redirect at the present time. I personally do NOT trust the draft process entirely (its too easy for a good article to be held up there, and the draft process is really for Wikipedia beginners to be perfectly honest) and would much rather it become a redirect rather than a draft, if that is the choice. Historyday01 (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete as promotional and NN. This Wikipedia article is serving as promotion for a "project" that started "development" in 2018. It's not there, it's not going to be there, and the refbombing with press releases, interviews in NN niche publications, and tweets reeks of G11. I note nothing since 2022 in the article. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Its not a promotion for the project and the fact you would say that (and wrongly accuse me of having some sort of connection to those who created this series) is deeply unfortunate, especially coming from someone who boasts about saving articles on your user page. I guess this article doesn't matter to you. Simply put, if you really wanted to improve it, then why haven't you done any edits on it? I mean, you could have done something to improve it since it was created. I detest nothing more than editors who don't put in the work to improve articles (it seems you have in other articles, but unless I missed something, I don't see any edits from you on this article). As I've said in many AfD discussions, deletion is not a solution for cleanup of articles. I'm guessing NN means "non-notable" which I have to dispute. As I said above, I support a "weak keep" or "redirect" at this present time, and I will NOT be changing that view. If it really comes down to it, I would support this becoming either a redirect and/or a sentence or two about it at Jeff "Swampy" Marsh#Career after Phineas and Ferb and reviving the show (there's two good sources which show his involvement). If so, the mention of the series on Swampy Marsh's page could be:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

• Delete: Does appear PROMO. Article is solely sourced to tweets, podcasts and non-RS. I don't find anything about this "upcoming" webseries that's been coming since 2018. If nothing has been written about it by now, I'm sure what notability we have left to find. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  As I said elsewhere in this discussion, this article is not promotional and it is incorrect to say it is so. The fact it is not as well sourced as it could have been is my fault. I wish someone (literally anyone) had brought these issues to my attention a year or so ago, as I would have done something about it, as the article's main contributor, rather than getting these comments in an AfD, which is the worst nightmare for an article creator. The fact that this AfD is happening at all is a failure of the Wikipedia system, as it could have been avoided with a discussion on the article's talk page. I would have been happy to discuss it there, but having an article in an AfD is very nerve-wracking and stressful. The article shouldn't be deleted outright, but should be changed, at minimum, to a redirect, or possibly, a weak keep. It is unfortunate that you support a deletion rather than a redirect, and I would hope that you change your view on that. Some series have BAD promotion, so that should be kept in mind. Otherwise, your comment is very harsh and should be much better worded, as the tone is VERY negative. If I was a new editor and I got this, I would not want to make any new articles ever again. --Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Promotional can be as simple as being listed higher up in search results; having an article here does help with Search engine optimization. This is not meant to be "mean" as I've discussed the facts here and please do not take it as such. You are certainly entitled to your !vote above, but I've reviewed what we have and don't feel either a redirect or a week keep would help in this case. If you are the article creator, please understand that you do not "own" the article, it's part of the wiki community and we all have a part to play in building a better encyclopedia. Oaktree b (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Your argument that this is promotional is not convincing in the slightest. I understand that I don't "own" the article, but saying it should be deleted is wrong. I just can't agree with that. I maintain that if it comes to it, a redirect would be the best. To wipe this article off Wikipedia together would be not only be unfortunate, but indicate Wikipedia's bias against LGBTQ+ articles, which leeches into discussions such as this one.Historyday01 (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Deletion isn't right or wrong; if it has not reliable sources, it's not suitable for here. We have rules in place and this will fall apart if we don't follow them, "just because" isn't a valid reason for keeping this. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  We are going in circles here. I understand your sentiment that deletion isn't right or wrong but that "if it has not reliable sources, it's not suitable for here" and that there are rules. However, bias always plays into discussions such as this, whether people have that bias willingly or unwillingly. In any case, and at this point in the discussion, I maintain that this article has ENOUGH value to qualify for a redirect. If the series DOES release this year, which I see as not outside the realm of possibility (anything is possible), and reliable sources attest to that release, THEN it can come back into the article mainspace. The idea it has NO value and should be wiped away and thrown in the trash bin is wholly incorrect, as you and the others foolishly favoring deletion (rather than any alternatives), are trying to claim.Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  Perfect, but we don't need to be creating walls of text at this point; I've said my part, and you yours. I think we're at a good point now, let's leave it at that. Oaktree b (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: All sourcing fails WP:SIRS, so article fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I have to disagree. Wouldn't a redirect to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh's page (the specific section is mentioned above) be a good compromise here? If it DOES pick up again and there ARE more sources, it can be brought back, but I think there's enough to justify the two sentences (which I purposed above) to at least mention it there. I did find some other sources about it in The Advocate, V13, Reel Librarians (cited as an external link on Librarians in popular culture and on some other pages on here), and The Corsair as well. Historyday01 (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  The Advocate (definitely an RS) is paywalled--not a disqualifier, but can you summarize that? V13 is another interview from 2020, and Reel Librarians is a bare mention from 2021. Nothing I've seen says this is anything other than an aspirational project stuck in development hell. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Honestly, the fact that the Advocate wasn't added before is that it was paywalled. I think its just an interview with Sawyer. I'm still supporting of a redirect rather than a straight deletion, which would wipe everything about this article from existence. Historyday01 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:PAYWALL applies: it's still a good source, even if not free, although interviews only contribute to notability as much as the value of the underlying publication venue, and The Advocate would be the highest profile source I've seen discussed here. (note that some deprecate interviews even further than I do). You know you can keep a copy of this in your userspace pending eventual improvement, right? If you put it in draft, it gets deleted G13 in 6 months (IIRC), but userspace is not purged like that. As long as you don't run afoul of WP:FAKEARTICLE NN topics with potential SHOULD be able to live in your own sandboxes indefinitely. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  You are right that I could do that, but personally I think a redirect would be preferable as I already have many drafts / articles in progress. Historyday01 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Jeff "Swampy" Marsh as an alternate to deletion since there’s a reasonable chance that if it releases the content may be revived, but for now it just might be WP:TOOSOON. Raladic (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  That's my thought as well. As the main contributor to this, I'd be totally fine with a redirect... I think sometimes people forget that redirect is a good alternative to deletion. Some people in this discussion are even denying that, which seems strange to me. They just want to wipe out this article entirely. Historyday01 (talk) 20:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not even sure a redirect is appropriate; this project has been around since 2019, if it's not become notable by now, redirecting to this person's article doesn't bring anything of value. Oaktree b (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree. It does bring something of value. For those who are interested in Marsh, who is a BIG name in the animation industry, it only makes sense. Your continued harping that this article doesn't bring anything of value to Wikipedia is sounding like a broken record. It is not productive to ending this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify? People have pointed out that the show's not really notable right now, but it could be in the future. But I don't think voting keep because it might be notable in the future is a good reason (WP:CRYSTALBALL, maybe). So my vote is towards draftifying. Not sure about redirecting to the director - the main person of the series is Sam Sawyer, but any ATD works. Spinixster (trout me!) 07:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Hmm. Wouldn't a redirect be a bit better than a draft at this point? I only support redirecting to Marsh because he's a pretty big figure when it comes to the animation industry, and Sawyer doesn't have a page as of yet. Historyday01 (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  The target isn't mentioned at Marsh, though, so it might cause confusion for people who are trying to find it. Spinixster (trout me!) 15:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think it will be confusing if we added in one or two sentences about it, using the formulation I mentioned above. If it comes to it, I would be fine with a draft, its just at this point in the discussion and since no one else seems to support "weak keep", a redirect is the first option I favor, and a draft is the second option I favor.Historyday01 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't draft, it's been around since 2018/2019, if it hasn't become notable in the 5 years since, I wouldn't count on a sudden influx of critical notice making it notable. Oaktree b (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't agree with that view. While I personally would lean more toward a redirect, a draft for me, wouldn't be completely out of the question. Historyday01 (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Brian Andrews (actor)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Brian Andrews (actor)
• Articles for deletion/Brian Andrews (actor) (2nd nomination)

Brian Andrews (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

delete: it's not about whether the roles are significant or not, it is about whether the role is significant or not. and so far... the only significant role i can find is his role as tommy doyle from halloween. other roles/movies listed in the article do not really make him significant, failing WP:NACTOR brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 08:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Programme level

Programme level (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Alhaqeqa Aldawlia

Alhaqeqa Aldawlia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Leon Burchill

Leon Burchill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I first saw this article when I was looking at the cast of Stoned Bros.. I prefer the information of this article to be transferred in other websites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. Also, this article isn't notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Strong delete Fails WP:NACTOR. All his roles minor usually 1 off appearances in TV shows. LibStar (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. I too want this article deleted anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymy365248 (talk • contribs) (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. One of two co-leads in Stone Bros. so even if nothing else this could be redirected there so there is absolutely no justification for deletion. But it's not just that. His role in Wyrmwood is a significant role so he satisfies WP:NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Strong Delete : That's no excuse keep the article and consider it notable. If you consider an article notable and want to keep it, have it expanded by looking for accurate information. If not, then I'll have it deleted. Anonymy365248 (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC) This !vote is from the nominator

  You had already !voted as nominator, as Aviationwikiflight and Liz indicated on your talk page. Kindly strike your !vote, thanks.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:32, 16 June 2024 (UTC) (and yes, two significant roles are a sufficient reason to consider him notable)

  You can't "vote" twice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy keep: Applications of WP:SKCRIT#1 and #3. The nominator has failed to provide an accurate deletion rationale and has also failed to give intelligible grounds for content deletion. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Battle Cat

Battle Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Rockoons

Rockoons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete or merge to Soyuzmultfilm. Article certainly does fail SIGCOV. It's all unsourced fancruft with both citations barely mentioning the subject in passing, as stated by the nom. The show has been around three years yet a Gsearch mainly turns up this while content for the show consists of YouTube clips. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Soyuzmultfilm#TV_series (not opposed to keep; added 2 sources for verification; opposed to deletion)-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for adding sources. I agree with your rationale to redirect since the sources are direct links to a video platform and press releases from Soyuzmultfilm and thus don't contribute to notability as a standalone topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Because this source tells entirely about the show, doesn't this count as significant coverage? Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC) Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's significant, but it's not independent. At the top it says "Пресс-релизы," or press release See WP:PRSOURCE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  Is this one a press release? I don't see "Пресс-релизы" in it. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

  Comment Kind of hard for anyone to verify who doesn't understand Russian. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 08:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I myself can’t read Russian web pages, but I can translate them. The same should apply to everyone else. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

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

• Redirect as suggested is fine, PR items don't help notability. I don't find any else. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the second source I posted here is PR. It doesn't explicitly say so. Red White Blue and Yellow (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

KWCC-LD

KWCC-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

Veronica Cintron

Veronica Cintron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete: I'm not impressed with the local Emmy win. The position held at the airport is non-notable, otherwise, she's simply a local reporter. Seems to be good at her job, I'm just not sure it rises to the level of notability for a wikipedia article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Dilly Braimoh

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Dilly Braimoh
• Articles for deletion/Dilly Braimoh (2nd nomination)

Dilly Braimoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

K35DG-D

K35DG-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

• Keep - Television stations meet GNG based on their publicly available license application alone. There's an SNG that explains this but its name eludes me. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Merge They had a license, they stopped operating and they fail WP:GNG. Merging to the mother-university is the best option. The Banner talk 07:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Panta n' antamonoume

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Panta n' antamonoume
• Articles for deletion/Panta n' antamonoume (2nd nomination)

Panta n' antamonoume (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 11:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

List of WHA broadcasters

List of WHA broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As with sources per WP:RS besides those unsourced, consists of nothing but YouTube posts, dead links, trivial mentions, WP:PRIMARY, commercial sites, WP:TERTIARY, blogspot, fanpages and primarily on anything but the broadcasting itself; not helping this list to assert notability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

    But why does it have to be a list then? Why not a History of WHA tv broadcasts? Conyo14 (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

    That is exactly my question as well. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

    Yeah, turning it into a History of WHA tv broadcasters is a good idea.Masterhatch (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Per BornonJune8. I think between the sources and BornonJune8's comments there's enough to demonstrate adequate enough coverage to pass WP:LISTN. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Bad Gumaan

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Bad Gumaan
• Articles for deletion/Bad Gumaan (2nd nomination)

Bad Gumaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I couldn't even find ROTM coverage, much less sig/in-depth coverage, so fails GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Heer Da Hero

Heer Da Hero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Amar_Khan#As_writer: Coverage including some that contains critical assessment is imv enough to keep this but to avoid long discussions that have taken place during other Afds of Pakistani-related films/actors/series etc, I am suggesting this as alternative to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep meets WP:GNG. Coverage in Daily Times ([24]) and Dawn ([25]) is enough. Both are staff written articles. 188.29.129.61 (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • 188.29.129.61, I did include both of these coverage in my nomination, and I explained why they weren't sufficient to pass the GNG . —Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

    Thank you for presenting those sources and commenting. For the record, the article in Dawn, signed by Sadaf Haider, and that contains three paragraphs on the series, including critical appraisal, does not seem churnalism nor to "fall under NEWSORGINDIA"; it contains more than trivial mentions or "ROTM": "This script was written by the lead actress Amar Khan and was initially called JanjalPur. After the teasers, many complained this show might be too loud and filmi for Ramazan, but a strong cast and direction pulls the story together, keeping it entertaining without going over the edge.Imran Ashraf is perfect in the familiar avatar of the action hero, beating up goondas (goons) and maintaining peace in the neighbourhood where his father (Waseem Abbas) lost an election. This year ‘Hero Butt’ will ensure his father wins the seat of the local councillor. The opposition is TikTok star Heer Jatt’s family, her father played by Kashif Abbasi and uncle, a corrupt policeman played by Afzal Khan (Jan Rambo), whose deadpan humour is unmissable.Like most Ramazan shows, the supporting cast of quirky but lovable personalities are essential to the spirit of the show. Amar is fantastic as Heer, funny, tough, determined and somehow vulnerable too. The show also debuts Scottish Pakistani YouTube star Rahim Pardesi (Mohammad Amer) whose hilarious face-off with Hero Butt is the stuff of legend. Despite the simple setting, efforts have been made to keep up the production values, and the wardrobe and lighting giving us a very watchable show..-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

    I didn't refer to the coverage in Dawn as churnalism or even classified it under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The coverage was in Daily Times, and Dawn's coverage alone is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 10:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

    Ah, OK! Thanks for clarifying. Still, I don't think you can call it "ROTM" (which you do, unless I misunderstood that part too). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

    Mushy Yank, But GNG require strong sourcing, something which are unlikely to be challenged or questioned, IMO. — Saqib (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

List of ESPN personalities

List of ESPN personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: This subject is discussed as a group in secondary sources such as [[26]], [[27]], [[28]] and [[29]] just for starters. I'd say this meets the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Keep per Let'srun. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

List of ESPN Radio personalities

List of ESPN Radio personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The personalities for ESPN radio are discussed in a multitide of sources, such as [[30]], [[31]], [[32]], and [[33]]. I'd say this meets the WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  These links falls under WP:ROUTINE, more like another announcments of lineups. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

WEEE-LP

WEEE-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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

SagamoreHill Broadcasting

SagamoreHill Broadcasting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Georgia (U.S. state). Let'srun (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: While I am unable to find indepth articles specifically about SagamoreHill Broadcasting, I did see plenty of articles that mention the company and articles about the stations it owns. Hkkingg (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Hum TV
• Articles for deletion/List of programs broadcast by Hum TV (2nd nomination)

List of programs broadcast by Hum TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am also concerned about the fate of borderline/mildly notable series/programs whose pages are redirected to pages like this (not about the pages themselves, but at the idea that the ATD is not an ATD). And more generally about the issue of notability of various lists like this. Allow me to quote User:Maile66's comment during a recent Afd: "Refer to Category:Lists of television series by network. Generally speaking, most of them list the programs they carry, and have no sourcing. Most of them are also kept current if programs are added or dropped. There are literally hundreds of stations involved, if not thousands of stations and programs involved. If anyone disagrees with how it's handled, I'd suggest discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television." I think it's a fair concern. Either a broader discussion or a consensus that, yes, sourcing should be better but that this type of pages should generally be considered OK when the network is notable. A broader discussion would perhaps be helpful.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

But 2402:ad80:ab:6d1:1:0:713f:e3e2 has a point; WP:TVGUIDE says: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." (emphasis mine). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your replies. To be honest I don't even understand how TVGUIDE applies here (nor to most of the lists mentioned above in Maile66's quote): "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." As for sources on Hum Tv programs as a set, see my reply above. And as for WP:NLIST, it is a guideline, sure, but so is WP:SPLITLIST that imv applies to all these lists of programs of notable networks. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

List of ESPNews personalities

List of ESPNews personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Merge to ESPNews Article is frozen in time from 2014 when all original programming it carried was phased out, and ESPNews and SportsCenter up to 2014 were generally completely different in tone and direction. Nate • (chatter) 17:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Télé Lyon Métropole

Télé Lyon Métropole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

• It appears that BFM Lyon Métropole is the rebrand/successor of this station [34]. There is no sourced content in the (English) article; the article should not be kept in its current form. A redirect (to BFM TV) might be better than trying to fix this article. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to BFM Régions, where we learn that Télé Lyon Métropole was bought out by BFM, and rebranded as "BFM Lyon Métropole" then "BFM Lyon" as part of the BFM Régions network. In an ideal world the article could be kept and expanded from the frwiki article (which itself is way out of date), but realistically that isn't going to happen for a defunct local channel. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The Venery of Samantha Bird

The Venery of Samantha Bird (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Spinixster (trout me!) 09:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes — multiple instances of published, significant coverage about the subject in sources of presumed reliability. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah, but it's all routine press coverage, no sources show that the cancelled series is notable after its cancellation. Not all cancelled series/films with routine press coverage are notable, and if it is, might as well make pages for the 200+ series and films that have been cancelled. Spinixster (trout me!) 00:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

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

• Keep: coverage seems sufficient to have a page (with notable cast, production history, premise verified). If really there's no consensus about that being enough, then redirect to Starz and add a line there with a few of the sources from this article (but I think it's not necessary and personally find it would be a pity). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 00:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

WBON-LD

WBON-LD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kentucky. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Delete for lacking independent sourcing. Within the citations I see sourcing to the station itself, FCC registrations, and accessibility listings. As of this writing the two independent sources that mention the station just do so in passing: an obit piece for a former news anchor and one mentioning the sale of the station. The article has been around in at least stub form since 2006 so this seems to have just flown under the radar not to have been nominated for AfD long ago.Blue Riband► 19:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Recommend keeping. Career cut short but a fine actor.

Neil Fitzwiliam

Neil Fitzwiliam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

• Delete: An article that doesnt meet WP:NACTOR. No major roles too and unverified sources. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Television proposed deletions

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts § Alerts