Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
WikiProject
Television
Project main page
Project discussion
Project assessment talk
Television portal talk
Descendant WikiProjects and task forces
Showcase
Project organization
Article alerts
Deletion sorting
Popular pages
New articles
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Project templates talk
Television stubs
Guidelines
Project manual of style talk
Project notability guidelines talk
TV article naming convention talk
Broadcasting article naming convention talk
Related WikiProjects
Actors and Filmmakers
Albums
Animation
Anime and manga
Comics
Film
Literature
Media franchises
Radio
Screenwriters
Westerns
view · edit · changes
Deletion Sorting
Project

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.


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

Related deletion sorting


Television

[edit]

Take Me, I'm Yours

[edit]
Take Me, I'm Yours (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- ref 1 and is just plot/sypnosis, and ref 3 is about an actor and how is joining the show, and not about the show. And I wasn't able to find sources for notability with google. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion about the current article, but please restore the redirect to Take Me I'm Yours rather than deleting. --Zundark (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go, Baby!

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Go, Baby! (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 indication of notability, even with the primary sources shown, simply listing IMDB and Disney deprives this article's notability TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pamilya Sagrado episodes

[edit]
List of Pamilya Sagrado episodes (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 is a contested draftification and AfC rejection. This list provides nothing that isn't already at Pamilya Sagrado. An article consisting entirely of a list of episodes is a policy violation — Wikipedia is not a catalog. I would recommend redirecting to Pamilya Sagrado. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derek_Brenzcewski

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Derek_Brenzcewski (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)

Reality TV star, one show only. Fails WP:BIO SallyRenee (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of WP:GNG besides two pieces from a local Patch newspaper. The show doesn’t even have a page here, and that too doesn’t seem notable enough. Delete. Jordano53 13:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every indication I'm seeing looking up the show is that this was a self-financed pilot the subject paid Spike to air hoping that they'd make more episodes, which they didn't. There also seem to be search results suggesting he was doing this all while working in a local school district and corresponded with the producers through his school account, but just looking at the show and subject, there's nothing here outside a vanity project somehow getting time on a major cable network for its failed pilot. Nate • (chatter) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Luthor

[edit]
Lionel Luthor (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 know this article is GA, but everything are cited as primary sources. Did WP:BEFORE, but found zero WP:SIGCOV. A source for ex like this [4] isn't. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, here. This paper does have a lot of plot summary on Lionel Luthor, but also evaluation of his role, although mostly in relation to Lex Luthor (Smallville). Daranios (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wordhunt

[edit]
Wordhunt (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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vallabhaneni Maheedhar

[edit]
Vallabhaneni Maheedhar (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)

A WP:BEFORE search yields results from databases, LinkedIn, Facebook, Amazon, and other unreliable sources. The subject fails to meet under WP:NACTOR and WP:FILMMAKER. Also, there is no indication of meeting WP:SIGCOV. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who Attacked Cindy?

[edit]
Who Attacked Cindy? (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 article consists almost entirely of an incredibly lengthy plot summary and contains original research. It is also very off-topic throughout, given how unfocused several headings are (The "Storyline creation and development" section contains almost no information about such, instead focusing on unnecessary announcements and events preceding it, and the "Reception" section shows few reactions to the storyline as a whole, with ref 13 particularly being about a different topic entirely). FishLoveHam (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To emphasise how the sources are insufficient given the topic:
  • [1] Not related to the storyline itself, just background surrounding the central character.
  • [2] Just backing up that she was key in that story, again, unrelated to the article's subject. Additionally, the claim that the character was made central to storylines is technically original research.
  • [3]-[6] see [2], an overview of the central character's storylines is not needed, and it almost seems as if it was only included to pad out the article.
  • [7] Correct, but not relevant.
  • [8] "Producers decided to incorporate Cindy into the show's 40th anniversary storyline when it became clear how pivotal the character had become" - original research.
  • [9] see [2]
  • [10]-[12] Okay reception, but all can be found in the Episode 7037/7038 article.
  • [13] Misleading, as the statement is correct, but the article is not about the storyline as it was published before the initial attack was aired.
FishLoveHam (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have made several amendments to the article; as a result, the references in your piece will of course no longer be relevant to the article in its current form. Regardless, I have clarified and defended them in this response, whilst also illustrating the amendments I have made.
[1] Cindy is pivotal to the storyline; hence, some background information is helpful
[2] I accept this and have removed it from the article.
[3-6] Amended to highlight how these storylines built into "Who Attacked Cindy?"
[8] This has now been amended
[9] Amended by removing the original research
[10-12] We could expand by transferring the reception from Episode 7037/7038; reception to the Christmas Day 2009 episode is included on the Who Killed Archie? storyline.
[13] This has now been removed based on your critiques. Filer390 (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain
Filer390 (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Background information can be helpful, but in this case it reads more as clutter. You're correct about Cindy being pivotal to the storyline, but the article isn't about her. While this story could have been in the pipeline during her reintroduction, George affair, etc. There isn't proof of such, so it can't be considered part of the storyline's creation/development. Also, about "Who Killed Archie?", the 2009 Christmas episode doesn't have its own article, and the "Who Killed Archie?" article doesn't solely consist of information about the episode the character is killed/attacked, like in this article. On a case-by-case basis, it isn't okay here. FishLoveHam (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't think you seem to realise that not everything that happens on the show needs a Wikipedia article; "Who Killed Archie?" and "Who Killed Lucy Beale?" were HUGE, and comparatively dwarf this particular storyline in terms of scale and media coverage. Again, I'd like to reiterate that this storyline COULD become notable in the future, but the current state of this article demonstrates that it isn't. FishLoveHam (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retain or Merge with Episode 7037/7038. I agree that as it stands, the article has too much original research (and not enough citations), but those are grounds for it needing improvement, not removal. HarashoEli (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding the redirect or merge with Episode 7037/7038. This is a fandom.wiki level of detail. Kazamzam (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Standard soap plot this time of year and very much of a OR 'type what I see' recap we've long discouraged with a bizarre narrative writing style that seems inspired by true crime, not a fictional series. There are also a lack of real-world impact sources and too many BBC/Radio Times stories considered not as disqualified PR as they should be, but as serious sources when that's far from the case. Nate • (chatter) 22:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a standard soap plot as it has been promoted as part of the show's 40th anniversary storyline in sources which the article cites. Similar to how previous anniversary storylines like Who Killed Archie? and Who Killed Lucy Beale? have articles due to their significance to the show's history.
    Having read more of this discussion, I now accept that the storyline section should be subject to judicious editing.
    In conclusion, could you clarify whyRadio Times articles should be considered as disqualified PR? The magazine is now independent from the BBC. Filer390 (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If they kill somebody off every five/ten years that seems pretty standard in itself, and the RadioTimes sources (which are from the same writer) are utterly promotional to send viewers to VOD and onto a bog standard soap recap. It adds nothing to the article outside recapping the episode. Nate • (chatter) 21:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to a section within the main Cindy Beale article. I'm not sure it passes WP:GNG in it's current state, and I'm not sure how notable it is overall, especially compared to similar storylines, like Who shot J.R.? (maybe a different discussion there though). Also, I notice the nominator is creating their own draft about the same subject... - JuneGloom07 Talk 02:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I started a section on Cindy Beale about this whodunit. FishLoveHam (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Draftify: Unbelievably cruel to delete someone's hard work, especially when it's been nominated by someone who creates articles for random episodes on the daily basis. This storyline will culminate at the anniversary and will no doubt gain traction when the 40th approaches. Tamzin Kuzmin (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What an odd response to an AFD... First, it isn't "unbelievably cruel" to nominate an article for deletion, especially when this happens on a daily basis and the article meets the critieria for deletion. You are seemingly assuming bad faith in this discussion, which is not the case. As for me being "someone who creates articles for random episodes on the daily basis", that is both irrelevant and blatantly false. Of the thirty-six articles I have written, three are television episodes, and only two are EastEnders episodes. And on "This storyline will culminate at the anniversary and will no doubt gain traction when the 40th approaches" You don't know that for sure, and in a way supported the argument that in its current state, this article fails WP:GNG. Even supposing you end up being correct, the 40th anniversary is over a month away, and is it really worth keeping this poor article up for that long, even with the chance that this storyline doesn't get much coverage come 40th or afterwards? I'm not opposed to this storyline receiving an article in the future, but it simply isn't notable enough as of now. FishLoveHam (talk) 10:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You asserted that the storyline isn’t significant at this time as we don’t know what will take place in it. However, an article on the 40th anniversary live episode currently exists, despite there being no evidence of its importance due to its plot line. Just as we can assume it will be important due to previous anniversary specials ie 25th and 30th anniversary, we can assume Who Attacked Cindy will be important due to previous whodunnits like Who Killed Archie? and Who Killed Lucy Beale? This storyline requires an article as it has been confirmed to be part of the 40th anniversary episodes, and can be added to over time. Filer390 (talk) 11:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I said it is insignificant because there is no guarantee that sufficient sources will exist in the future, not because it might not be important to the show's story. EastEnders Live (2025 episode), Who Killed Archie?, and Who Killed Lucy Beale? are all notable on their own, and they have the sources to prove it. An article doesn't exist because you say it should, it needs to pass WP:GNG. They do, this doesn't (as of now). To reiterate, this story being part of the 40th anniversary doesn't support its keeping and it certainly does not "require" an article for that reason. An article should only be created when the topic passes the general notability guideline, which this currently does not. FishLoveHam (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would refer you to the article on Who Killed Lucy Beale? once again; it was created only a few days after the storyline began (similar to Who Attacked Cindy?), using only one source (Digital Spy) and a lot less content than this article currently possesses. initial publication of Who Killed Lucy Beale? There was also little evidence to illustrate why the storyline was notable enough to achieve an article. Filer390 (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to that, was there any evidence which existed at that point in time which suggested the storyline would become so crucial? The article certainly doesn't; I would say Who Attacked Cindy's article contains much more evidence of that. Evidently, Who Killed Lucy Beale? gained more sources because it was promoted as a crucial storyline to the show, just like Who Killed Archie? before it and just like Who Attacked Cindy? now- because we know that it will be part of the 40th anniversary storyline. Clearly, the storyline's notability will rise. Filer390 (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That was also 2014, over ten years ago; Wikipedia's quality standards have significantly evolved since then. Just because an article was created under less stringent conditions in the past doesn't mean that the same approach should be applied still, especially if it contradicts the General Notability Guidelines (WP:GNG) , which you seem to have no regard for despite its importance. I'd also like to point out that while "Who Killed Lucy Beale?" passes general notability, it isn't necessarily a model of a great article. Please realise that the decision to delete an article is not about what might happen in the future; it is what's verifiable and notable now. Your certainty around how the article subject will gain notability violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL (Sidenote: This also states "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors", which the creation and development section is). If the storyline indeed gains traction closer to the 40th anniversary, nothing prevents its article from being recreated later. FishLoveHam (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aaj Aari Kaal Bhaab

[edit]
Aaj Aari Kaal Bhaab (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 indication of notability per WP:NFILM. A WP:BEFORE shows unreliable sources, database, and streaming sites. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna McKenzie

[edit]
Krishna McKenzie (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 does not appear to meet WP:NBIO from a Google search and so should be deleted or redirected to Samayal Express. Sahaib (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is a stub being expanded. Google News has credible sources. The individual's notability does not exclusively come from Samayal Express, thus should not be redirected there. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Henderson

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Carly Henderson (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)

Fail WP:JOURNALIST and WP:ENT. No indication of WP:GNG. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BeritaSatu World

[edit]
BeritaSatu World (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 findable references. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Chapman

[edit]
Jonah Chapman (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)

Sources currently cited consist of IMDb and some YouTube channels published by the subject. Searching the name alone turns up unrelated individuals; with some other specifying material added, some promotional material from an agency turns up, but nothing which would indicate notability. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tyner Rushing

[edit]
Tyner Rushing (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:BLP of an actress, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, notability for actors is not automatically passed just because they've had acting roles -- the test doesn't hinge on listing acting roles, it hinges on showing reliable source coverage about them and their performances to establish the significance of those roles. But this is referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability -- IMDb, a YouTube clip and a Q&A interview in which she's answering questions in the first person -- with absolutely no evidence of third-party coverage about her shown at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger notability claim than just existing and better sourcing for the significance of her career, but working actors are not automatically exempted from having to pass WP:GNG just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks again for helping me make the page more credible. To sum up, I added about 10 references - credible news coverage showing she is an actress of notability and needs a Wikipedia page. She is a lead on my favorite Apple TV television show. I propose we remove Tyner Rushing from the deletion discussion list. Slamdunkeroo (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JOJO (Turkish children's channel)

[edit]
JOJO (Turkish children's channel) (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)

Tagged five years ago as uncited. The cites on the Turkish article are not enough to show that it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beavis

[edit]
Beavis (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 am having a hard time finding any WP:SIGCOV about Beavis and Butt-head. Most of the sources talked about the film Beavis and Butt-Head, mostly instead of the characters. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanal D (International)

[edit]
Kanal D (International) (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)

Tagged 7 years ago as completely unsourced. I only found one reasonable source https://www.milliyet.com.tr/magazin/cannesa-kanal-d-damgasi-7219054 Chidgk1 (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found some sources from a turkish newspaper Hürriyet Daily News, Varity, issue and BBC. Mysecretgarden (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions. For a company such as this we need sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Click the link and you'll see the kind of thing required. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Albanese

[edit]
Tina Albanese (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 person doesn't seem notable enough to me. I cannot find any news coverage about her. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Simpson (The Simpsons)

[edit]
Mona Simpson (The Simpsons) (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)

Did WP:BEFORE, but found zero sigcov at all. Only this source [5] is quite good out of all that have been used, but I don't think this one also counts as sigcov. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dadı

[edit]
Dadı (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)

Tagged 6 years ago for lack of cites. As far as I can tell the cites on the Turkish article are just for stuff like what time it was on rather than whether it was a good show or successful Chidgk1 (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

K07AAD-D

[edit]
K07AAD-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; largely unsourced; was part of a previous AFD. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Walls

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Dave Walls (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)

Non-notable sportscaster. Deletion suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Spain. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elise Finch

[edit]
Elise Finch (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 was deleted via PROD in 2015 as she failed to meet notability guidelines for local news anchors and people in general and did not gain any afterwards. Most of the article's references are about her untimely death, which does not add notability per WP:NOTMEMORIAL The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Next Step characters

[edit]
List of The Next Step characters (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)

Entirely in-universe page, based around plot summaries, no attempt to fix this since the article was tagged over four years ago. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Web Series About a Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Untitled Web Series About a Space Traveler Who Can Also Travel Through Time (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)

Has a lot of sources but nothing particurly in depth. Most nothing beyond basic release info, plot recap and casting info fails WP:NTV Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to hear more opinions from editors well-versed in this field.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo

[edit]
Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo (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 page was BLARed in October 2023, and now a duplicate article was created at Draft:Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo (Tv Show), which I moved to draft because of the duplication. Both pages should be merged if kept. CycloneYoris talk! 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Ayer's unrealized projects

[edit]
David Ayer's unrealized projects (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)

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik: at Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". I no longer see these pages being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Why proceed with a single AFD case now, as opposed to having an RFC to determine if such articles are appropriate, and with what criteria? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the dialogue with Zander on Guadagnino's, it's become clear these pages are purely just seen as trivia. Some very few unrealized projects are indeed are of interest, but when looking at the page, and it's largely "X announced plans to make X, but never did", it just doesn't scream as being a vital article to have. Terry Zwigoff's unrealized projects is particularly exemplary of this. Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Perfectly standard. Sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A page having sources doesn’t make the topic of value. It’s a list of films that never happened, or didn’t happen with the person, which makes their involvement with it both not that important to the person, or the project. Why does a list of that need to be on Wikipedia as its own page? Where does this end then? Does this open the door towards “Tom Cruise’s untaken roles”? Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What opens the door towards "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" is reliable outlets taking "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" up as an in-depth subject. I.e. sources, and sources only - but the sources have to handle the untaken roles as an entity. Standalone articles about individual scrapped projects can't be synthesized to a Wikipedia article per WP:SYNTH. An article about a director's turned-down or walked-over direction opportunities survived AFD not too long ago. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And in my opinion it probably shouldn’t have. Clearly, what constitutes “unrealized” currently is too broad and thus it has entitled editors to include all these different projects that really don’t fall under “unrealized”. A lot of these articles have sections where it’s just like a sentence or two, and it’s about the director being “offered”, or being “considered” to direct something they never did. Or projects that were announced once and never discussed at all again, or even projects they’re verifiably still attached to and working on. That to me just makes these lists become flashy tidbit factoids that if the project was actually seen through with someone else it can just easily be noted in the film’s article, or the directors article. A whole article dedicated to mostly unproduced films with no notable production history is superfluous. Rusted AutoParts 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic fightpicking.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that "Perfectly standard" or "No issue in keeping the article" are not guideline-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not (although common sense should incite us to believe that a perfectly standard page is very likely an acceptable page as standalone list/article.) But SPLITLIST is a guideline, and a solid reason for keeping list-formatted pages. -Mushy Yank. 13:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mwijaku

[edit]
Mwijaku (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)

After observing the article being too promotional (still is), I moved the it back to draft space hoping for improvement that would follow a regular review at AFC but the original editor moved it back direct to the mainspace also nowhere in the references show subject's (important claims) like date of birth or number of children they have, where did the editor get them? That's WP: PROMOTIONAL, WP:COIEDIT and tries to use wikipedia as WP:SOAPBOX.

No any notable work listed show subject's importance, just a bunch of gossip blogs. Just a reminder, Wikipedia isn't a gossip blog/newspaper WP:NOTGOSSIP.

Refs: Only The Citizen is a reliable source, the rest are blogs that cannot be trusted on WP:BLP. ANUwrites 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor of this article, I have made improvements by adding additional information from sources that I believe are credible. Please review it to see if it is satisfactory and help me by correcting any mistakes. 3L3V8D (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there is an unbolded Keep here, I don't think that a Soft Deletion is an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

[edit]

Television proposed deletions

[edit]
See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts § Alerts
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Television&oldid=1267071379"