Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television

WP:DELSORT/TV

	WikiProject Television

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

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

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

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

view · edit · changes

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

Adding a new AfD discussion

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

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

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

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

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

Further information

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

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

Purge page cache

watch

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

Related deletion sorting

Television

Felix Mendez

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

This is my first nomination, so correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the subject of this article is not notable. I haven't found any sources that would talk about him in detail. Li1411 (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Li1411 (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Name is too common to find anything about this individual, all kinds of hits on various subjects with this name. The one source used now is a PR item, so a non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG on WP:NBIO and WP:PRODUCER criteria. Content available online are predominantly from social media and user generated websites. No WP:RS or WP:IS for WP:V. QEnigma (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, Television, Advertising, Puerto Rico, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Beyoncé pop culture references

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

Taking this to AFD since a PROD was contested. The page appears to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE when bloated with lots of trivia and minor mentions of Beyoncé. We're not supposed to be a repository of whenever someone simply alludes to a celebrity or explicitly brings up their name, so I recommend deletion. That simply is a collection of fancruft. It also doesn't help that the list is full of inappropriate POV and tone. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary collection of trivia. Not everything should be listed in this encyclopedia, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Its notable entries, if any, could be merged to Cultural impact of Beyoncé. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thoroughly enjoyed researching to make this page (and I have to give thanks to the countless others who contributed and made tweaks), but the opposition (instead of constructive advice or actual editing) at every turn got annoying and you guys simply cannot make up your minds. This page actually began as part of the page Cultural impact of Beyoncé, but was recommended to be spun off in another discussion. Here we are again. I know I will see a similar "repository" in a few months' time for some other artist with none of the opposition, and the same users commenting here will be willing to work or provide advice to improve POV and tone there instead of merely complaining about it. C'est la vie. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I appreciate the effort of page's creator to collect info and sort it. However, I also agree this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A category would be useful. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Film, Television, Advertising, Popular culture, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cultural impact of Beyoncé. Strong oppose to outright deletion, per WP:ATD-R. There is no need to nuke this, some content might be useful for the target. Ping Apoxyomenus - you may want to reconsider delete vs redirect here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsskyscrapers @Bluesatellite I actually meant to ping only Train... but why not, everyone, this does not need to be TNTed out of history. Redirecting is exactly what is needed here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing any point in that when few if any of the listings are even worth mentioning there. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's Okay to Not Be Okay (Philippine TV series)

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

This television series has no mention of release date yet. Only cast announcements and filming. There were independent sources in this article besides ABS-CBN, which is considered first-party source, but not enough. A case of WP:TOOSOON. JRGuevarra (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. JRGuevarra (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - This upcoming TV series was already covered by various media outlets as early as 2022, though they mostly relate to casting announcement or such. I'm not sure if those constitute notability per WP:GNG, but I can't find any other decent coverage that would provide an overview for this series. For now, I'm leaning towards draftify. If other editors find this article worth retaining with strong argument, then I might as well revise my recommendation in favor of them. But draftify for now. AstrooKai (Talk) 12:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. ✴️Icarus The Astrologer✴️ 12:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The show already mentioned a 2025 release date, as part of ABS-CBN's upcoming programs for the new year. The first teaser was shown on the night of December 10, 2024 at the Araneta Coliseum in Quezon City. Gino March (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reading through the article, I saw a release date, but it only says next year. I think such strong pieces of evidence are needed for the article itself. There are many unsourced cast members that needed citations, and it's unknown what the upcoming series is about. For now, it's still likely too soon for television notability.

JRGuevarra (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I think it's in production hell. The producers have taken an idea from Korean TV to be adapted to the Philippines, but were unable to cast A-list actors (if you know, you know). So every five days they leak a few more details about casting and how emotional the show will be. However, the actual episode premiere date isn't yet announced. That's a red flag. I'm hoping it premieres in late February 2025 when I'm there. Bearian (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Hasan

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Not enough notability to warrant a standalone article, at least not at this time. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable actor. The sources in the article say it all. Mekomo (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally Non-notable actor and singer, does not have any coverage in any reliable source. I have fixed the citations, it's only three. Actor played small roles in the notable films, that does not proves notability. Taabii (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Gonna Take the Weight?

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

I turned this page, formerly a redirect to a Luke Cage episode, into a disambiguation page, since several topics covered on the encyclopedia are named this. Gonnym noticed this, either because he added it to his watchlist after having previously added redirect categories to it or because User:Gonnym/sandbox/Outline MCU episodes links to it. Gonnym restored the redirect and reverted my revert of his action, and so to avoid an edit war I have started this discission. Count me as a Keep voter. Mach61 18:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors changing redirect pages should familiarize with how to correctly do so. Many redirect pages don't have active watchers and so when a page like this gets hijacked, a lot gets lost. In this case there were 3 links (not counting my own) to the redirect. Only one was moved, leaving the two file namespace links broken. Additionally, television episode redirects are valid redirects and per WP:NOTBROKEN should not be turned to plain links like was done in Mach61's only "fix".

So to recap:

The project lost a valid television episode redirect that was in use
Two links were left broken
One link was left worse off

And all for a disambiguation page that other than the television episode, does not even link to any anchor.

What should have been done, if the page really needs to be turned into a disambiguation page (the non-anchor links show that maybe this episode is the primary), is

move the page to Who's Gonna Take the Weight? (Luke Cage) per WP:NCTV
fix ALL incoming links, not just those in the article space
use the redirect link in the disambiguation page as norm

Gonnym (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym. I accept that not updating the links on the file pages was suboptimal (I deliberately avoided editing your sandbox, since many editors do not want others editing their user subpages under any circumstances). However, my not following 100% of the proper procedures does not justify you removing a valid disambiguation page, just as a valid article with typos in it shouldn't be deleted for that; WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. You could have resolved this yourself without edit warring by copying the redirect to Who's Gonna Take the Weight (Luke Cage) with attribution. Mach61 18:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could, but then what's to stop you from continuing doing this with other pages that I happen to not be watching? Why should I or anyone else need to do additional work just to get to the same spot we were before? Also, and this is the most relevant to the AFD itself, why does the dab page need to be at the primary and not at Who's Gonna Take the Weight? (disambiguation)? The fact that there aren't even links to the targets (just general links to articles that mention them) is one sign that it doesn't. Gonnym (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym

I could, but then what's to stop you from continuing doing this with other pages that I happen to not be watching? A note on my user talk page
Why should I or anyone else need to do additional work just to get to the same spot we were before? Because this is as collaborative project built on imperfect net-positive contribitons. If what I replaced the redirect with was a negative contribution (e.g. vandalism), than sure, revert that, but the disambiguation page was valid.
Why does the dab page need to be at the primary and not at Who's Gonna Take the Weight? (disambiguation)? This question can be answered with an WP:RM and is in fact irrelevant to this AFD.

Mach61 20:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Disambiguations. Mach61 19:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore previous redirect None of the subjects have articles of their own and I don't feel like a conversion to a dab for such a random phrase is really needed. Nate • (chatter) 22:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm not entirely sure this is the right venue for this. It seems to be better suited for WP:RFD. That being said restore previous redirect per above. Dab's are for navigational purposes in Wikipedia and that is not needed in this case. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to dab page and fix any incoming links which need to be fixed. All the dab page entries appear to be places where a redirect would be appropriate, and as there are multiple, with no indication which is the primary topic, a dab page is appropriate. PamD 08:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @MrSchimpf: @Esolo5002:, linking to pages that reference a topic with a specific name is allowed in dabs per WP:DABMENTION. Besides, the episode also does not have an article; if someone first created the redirect to one of the other subjects, I can't imagine any of you would defend retargeting it to the TV show page unilaterally. Mach61 16:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For four of them and all so unrelated and random (and without getting into the weeds, some of them just seem to be a cover of the same song)? That's not what DABMENTION is intended for. Nate • (chatter) 17:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrSchimpf How are any of these links more "random" than the link to the season page? They are all referrals from the title of a creative work to related supertopics, just like a link from an episode title to the season the episode is in. The existence of {{r from book}} and {{r from song}} shows that redirects of this sort are accepted, and a disambiguation page is how to resolve a title being a valid redirect to multiple articles. And no, none of the songs are covers of one another (apprapos of nothing, the Luke Cage episode that you want restored is apparently named after the Gang Starr song). Mach61 02:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By Any Means Necessary (Babylon 5 Episode)

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

Another version already exists hidden in the page history of By Any Means Necessary (Babylon 5), which was BLARed in 2019. Both titles should be merged if kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgeureka: pinging the editor who performed the BLAR. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reviews by Reactor, The A.V. Club, and by a ECW Press-published book A Dream Given Form: [1], [2], [3] --Mika1h (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Keep I have dead tree sources for this episode, too. Most B5 episodes should be un-BLARed because the reception, etc. coverage exists... I just don't have time to do it. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Absolutely correct, all B5 episodes are definitely notable with at least four independent reliable review sources (Kaiser (AV Club), Rosner (Multiversity Comics), Jane Killick (hard copy only), Guffey and Koontz (on Kindle). I've un-BLARed the older stub for consistency of article naming :) :) Fh1 (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Jclemens. This subject is definitely notable, but the original article title should take priority here. However, AFD isn't a creation process. Recreating the page should be handled editorially instead of through AFD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

On second thought, as a merge is necessary anyway, I wouldn't be opposed to that outcome if it should be determined to recreate the article to incorporate the merged content. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if not merged-and-kept, then merged to the proper title and re-redirected would be the next most preferable outcome. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to By Any Means Necessary (Babylon 5) – reviews from Mika1h are sufficient to support a standalone episode article, but the current title is incorrect. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Babylon 5 episodes. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:OR. I'm not opposed to a stand-alone article if it complies with WP policies. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we simply redirect it to the article list, we then have two BLAR'ed articles on the same topic, By Any Means Necessary (Babylon 5 Episode) and By Any Means Necessary (Babylon 5). I can't see why that would ever be a good idea. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've un-BLARed the older stub for consistency of article naming :) :) Fh1 (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a cow

AfDs for this article:

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

Numerous variants of this title redirect to Bart Simpson (e.g. Have a cow), where it is a well-known catchphrase of him. The other page here, about an episode of an unrelated television series, has an ambox stating it might not be notable enough for an article (and is the only non-crossover episode of that series to have an article).

Therefore, I think Bart is probably the primary topic for this redirect and this disambiguation could be made into a redirect to that page. Xeroctic (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Disambiguations. Xeroctic (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. As long as Don't_Have_a_Cow_(That's_So_Raven) exists, it and Bart Simpson both have an equally valid argument for being the primary topic target, as such a disambiguation page seems appropriate. I think the AFD should be for the article, then changing this to a redirect to Bart Simpson would happen as a matter of course. JeffUK 17:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for rationale above. Wiktionary-have a cow has existed for almost a decade, so I think this could be considered a permanent part of the current lexicon. — Maile (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manya Pathak

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

Non-notable subject created by a blocked user. I have removed a lot of unsourced material, poorly sourced puffery, and unnecessary details. I have verified all the sources, but the notability of the subject remains uncertain. Zuck28 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Television, Business, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BLP. Sources couldn't help in establishing notability Garudam ^Talk! 12:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. a non notable actress. Lack of independent and reliable sources. TheWikiholic (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR as sources in the article is dominated by download websites. Mekomo (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Web Desk post [4], doesn't seem to show much for notability otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appearing in one TV show as a supporting cast member and in fewer than a dozen music videos is barely a career, much less a notable one. It's a side gig. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

58 Seconds

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

Fails WP:NFILM; there's nothing from a cursory search to also substantiate notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Entertainment, and Hungary. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this sorted in Television-related AfDs? I don't think this is a TV production. -Mushy Yank. 12:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Was unable to find any online sources about this film. As it stands, it fails WP:NFILM. Though, part of me wonders if there are any offline sources considering the film was made in 1964; if there are multiple reliable sources covering this film from something like a newspaper then I would consider keeping it. Beachweak (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is the first and noted film of a notable director (https://nfi.hu/en/core-films-1/films-3/documentaries-1/58-seconds.html) (see NFIC: involves a notable person and is a major part of their career) A Redirect to Lívia Gyarmathy#Filmography, a standard alternative to deletion when the director is notable and has a page on this WP, seems warranted anyway [edited after having improved the page]. -Mushy Yank. 12:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 12:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 22:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Funday Football

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

One-off program lacking in non-routine coverage. Could redirect or merge to Monday Night Football#2024 summary as an WP:ATD. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to the Monday Night Football article. It's gotten about as much coverage as the Toy Story version (that was quickly forgotten), this would likely be headed in the same direction. Oaktree b (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and American football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monday Night Football#2024 summary. A single line explaining how it went is fine enough. I'd also be open to eventually having a list of these types of games, List of animated NFL games or similar. Conyo14 (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not surprised to see this nomination, but I don't think we're going to see a delete here since trying to get a Simpsons subject matter article removed/redirected...well, I think we all know how hard that is (see how we're still trying to get action on two-review sourced Family Guy episode articles from seasons ago even now). We really need to create an article that sums up NFL alternate broadcasts (including the Nickelodeon versions) that will properly catalog them in an appropriate way. Placing this in the MNF article as a sentence I don't think is an elegant solution (the Toy Story broadcast was a one-off of an international NFL game on Sunday morning while this was clearly upfront much more). Nate • (chatter) 23:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me I think it’s best to merge with Manningcast since it’s considered as a MNF alternative broadcast) since we can just make another paragraph in listing and mentioning both the Toy Story and Simpsons funday football there Hoopstercat (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have anything to do with Manningcast though? SportingFlyer T·C 19:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not part of the Manningcast. Such content is on ESPN Megacast#Funday Football instead. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge worth mentioning somewhere here, but it's new and currently falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 00:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT at this time. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 17:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I think the better target would be the appropriate section of the ESPN Megacast article, which it seems more relevant to than the general MNF page. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 07:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ESPN Megacast#Funday Football instead. Editors are welcome to improve that article. In any case, we should treat the concept of ESPN Megacasts/alternative broadcasts as a series that does not merit standalone articles to individual episodes/broadcasts. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above Andre🚐 03:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? There are two targets being suggested. Conyo14 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either target, I slightly prefer ESPN Megacast#Funday Football. The important thing is that this separate article is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per many users above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have even numbers for two different Redirect/Merge target articles so I'm relisting to try to determine which would be preferable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Premachi Goshta (TV series)

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

Edit war between three editors attempting to redirect and a LOUTSOCK who keeps removing. Looking at the sources, they are all unreliable as churnalism, general announcements, and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Recommend redirect to Yeh Hai Mohabbatein which is the show this is based off of. Although, would also request protection of the title if that happens. CNMall41 (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yeh Hai Mohabbatein#Adaptations: but given the fact that the plot is different, it has an obviously different cast, including notable actors, and coverage about this ongoing apparently popular series with almost 300 episodes exists I am really not opposed to Keep. What I am very opposed to is deletion. -Mushy Yank. 20:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 20:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The show passes WP:NTVNATL straightway. There is ample coverage on its production, plot summaries (episodic), and cast updates, all supporting notability (majority being from Marathi media). There’s no strong basis for deletion. After the deletion discussion (if it remains), a request for article protection could be pursued.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 12:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus split between redirect and keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yeh Hai Mohabbatein#Adaptations. Per nom. RangersRus (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Principal Snyder

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

This Buffy character doesn't meet WP:FICTION or WP:GNG, there is no SIGCOV of him. Everything about the character is all in universe information, to make it worse, it only sites one unreliable source. Merge or Redirect to List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters. Toby2023 (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BEFORE not articulated, please search Google Scholar with the additional keyword Slayage. I see plenty peer reviewed independent RS on a cursory search which can be used to improve the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or merge) to LoC. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT and is just a supporting character. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A supporting character does not mean that they are not notable. There are some supporting characters with GAs DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 17:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for failing WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 14:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you do a search, or are you basing things on the current state of the article? Because if you did a search and found nothing, I'd like to help you improve your skills. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that BEFORE was not articulated - I have checked online and also have seen SIGCOV that Jclemens has included.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge, per Sgeureka. What few sources provide only trivial mentions or WP:PLOT, and this doesn't pass WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the nominator has left the project after being counseled to learn how AfD works and admitting they never did a BEFORE. Right now, there's a lot of people looking at the article and saying "I don't see sources in the article, redirect it" and others saying "Sources are easy to find, I see them." Both of which are fine opinions, but the latter are less policy based, per WP:NEXIST and WP:SURMOUNTABLE--NOT#PLOT doesn't apply to an improved version of the article, and so is not a reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think secondary sources like "Buffy, the Scooby Gang, and Monstrous Authority: BtVS and the Subversion of Authority" and ""You're on My Campus, Buddy!" Sovereign and Disciplinary Power at Sunnydale High", while remaining close to the plot, have enough characterization and commentary of what the character represents in the series to fullfill the requirements of both WP:WHYN and WP:NOTPLOT. The nomination reads a lot like it was considering only the current state of the article, which is not decisive for the question of deletion. At least, as Jclemens already said, there is no WP:BEFORE articluated. Daranios (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Tooncast

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

I would have draftified the article, but that has already happened and the creating editor reversed the move. At the moment, the article is a simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. As an alternative to deletion, I would support re-draftification so that interested editors can source and reference it properly. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Latin America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 23:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the context resides in the main article of which this is a standard SPLIT. Keep or merge back if size is not considered an issue; don't delete.-Mushy Yank. 23:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, it's not clear to me what list or article it has been split from. From its revision history, I do note that Tooncast has had many instances of very similar content added and then reverted as unsourced (on occasions citing WP:NOTTVGUIDE too) over the past year to the extent that page protection was requested. I don't know if the creation of this article is related to that activity. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No originally programming. No reason to list what every television channel in the world has on it at any given time. Not what Wikipedia is for. Dream Focus 12:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The programming, original or not, is of interest for the history both of the channel and of the broadcast of the said programs. In terms of navigation, the existence of categories (containing similar lists, that are very standard) is an excellent tool for the reader who wants to compare various channels' programs, for example. Or various channels from the same region/country, etc. How can one know what the channel is like if one does not know what they broadcast? -Mushy Yank. 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of old shows that have been on multiple channels over the years. Whatever company owns the rights to them now, just tosses them out on their channels as filler. Some of the shows listed are from the 1960's, and I seriously doubt many people watch them these days. Dream Focus 22:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason-Shane Scott

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

I struggled to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources during my WP:BEFORE (there are a few interviews on soap opera related websites, but nothing of substance to my mind. The one significant role in One Life to Live does not meet the bar for WP:NACTOR, and so I submit that the subject is not notable. I proposed a Redirect to One Life to Live. The article is also not written from a terribly neutral point of view either, but that is somewhat by-the-by. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as the nominator does not advocate deletion. The article can be boldly redirected as desired. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to be unclear. I do think that the article should be deleted. My suggestion of redirection was as an alternative to deletion, and I wanted to get some consensus before doing that. Cheers SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR, had a notable known role in One Life to Live and a notable recurring role in the web series The Bay. He also appeared in numerous films and television programs. He also meets WP:GNG from the sources found in Newspapers.com, Jason-Shane Scott: Acting based on looks along isn't true success (The Times and Democrat), 'One Life' actor Scott has family members who are there for him (Richmond Times-Dispatch), To Scott, talent counts more than looks (Austin American-Statesman), Dream come true: Wooster star get soap job; Diller goes undercover; Springer visits (Reno Gazette-Journal) and Jason-Shane Scott follows destiny on 'OLTL' (Oakland Tribune). Those five Newspapers.com sources shows that the article meets WP:GNG. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Team Epic

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

An article about unnotable 10-year old canadian web series which has no significant coverage from media. All sources in this article are just brief mentions of this show and do not prove its notability. Please do not be confused with Pop Team Epic, it is a completely unrelated series. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only bring up Pop Team Epic, which is a different thing than this. Sourcing used now in the article are blogs, imdb and other non-RS. Delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a few sources that are independent and significant coverage including critical appraisal and they were published in reliable media. -Mushy Yank. 21:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public News (Pakistan)

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

Non-notable news channel, coverage is mostly related to its founder Yousaf Baig Mirza. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Urdu_news -Mushy Yank. 20:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dharti TV

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

Non-notable local channel, lacks independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Sindhi -Mushy Yank. 20:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abb Takk News

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

The best source about this TV station is of Reporters Without Borders' article, but unfortunately it is very brief and says that this channel is known for "copying Indian TV channel ‘AajTakk’ down to its logo and most graphic designs." This is not enough to pass WP:NCORP which requires multiple in-depth articles in independent sources. Gheus (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Urdu_news -Mushy Yank. 20:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SUCH TV

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

~~Regulatory actions/penalties like this and this are enough to pass WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)~~ I've nominated this article under WP:NCORP as it is a for-profit media company. Regulatory actions or penalties like this and this are WP:ROUTINE news articles and come under WP:ORGTRIV. We need WP:SUBSTANTIAL coverage that direct and in-depth about this company. Otherwise, it clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Thank you. Gheus (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nom seems to want to keep the article and the sourcing is fine. The ones used in the article and above count as RS. What was the issue, why was this nominated for deletion? Oaktree b (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't want to keep the article - I have corrected my nom rationale. Gheus (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Please elaborate on a reason for deletion, Gheus. Nate • (chatter) 00:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noting the mistake, Nate. I have updated my reasoning. Gheus (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the discussion on the rationale provided now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_news_channels_in_Pakistan#Current_channels -Mushy Yank. 21:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrisson (singer)

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

Musician and radio DJ. The claims of notability are a #15 Hot Dance Airplay song in 2006, and one of his songs playing at a club scene in an episode of a NBC TV show. Neither of these meet WP:NMUSIC. All content edits are by two accounts that never edited anything else on Wikipedia (except a deleted draft article on his band). One reference is to the charts for the #15 hit, the other is vague and to a magazine that mentions a lot of musicians in passing. Here2rewrite (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Radio, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Meets criteria 2 of WP:SINGER for charting on a national music chart. No coverage other than a chart listing though... Unfortunately WP:LINKROT is a very real issue from 2006. It might be rescuable on sourcing grounds if we were to look at music magazine/newspaper coverage offline or behind paywalls. 4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The national music chart for the US is the main billboard chart, not Hot Dance Airplay. Here2rewrite (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. Historically at AFD we have interpreted all Billboard chart categories under criteria 2 of WP:MUSICBIO because they are all "national in scope".4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 6 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!} 22:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have sourced the PDF of Billboard that verifies the charting and added it as an inline citation. There is coverage of his radio career on SFGate:[5] and also here. Potentially a keep, needs further work. ResonantDis_tortion 20:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are brief mentions, single sentences that say when his radio program airs a quote from him in an article about something else. With the right news archive search there are dozens of results like that for any local DJ. --Here2rewrite (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, obviously, and is why I agreed with 4meter4 and stated there is potential, but did not !vote a firm keep (pending any further developments). ResonantDis_tortion 23:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent coverage in RS. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Content seems promotional. I also did not find significant coverage in reliable sources. Alan Islas (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kızım Nerede?

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

Tagged uncited for over a decade and Turkish article also uncited. There must be thousands of Turkish TV series as they generally run for only a few months or a year or two. I searched but could not see how this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've rapidly added a few things that seem to show this is notable enough. Opposed to deletion as a redirect either to the adapted series or to the network or to a list seems completely warranted anyway. The fact that there are "thousands of Turkish TV series" (in the history of Turkish TV?) cannot be considered a reason to delete any of them, nor is the fact that they run for months or a year or two "only", sorry.-Mushy Yank. 02:05, 5 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!} 23:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Félix de Bedout

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

BLP of a television personality, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for television personalities. No sigcov, no evidence of notability, insufficient sourcing since its creation. Jinnllee90 (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find stories about this person changing networks. What's used in the article isn't enough to show RS, nor are the sources in the ES wiki article, only profile pages on what appear to be broadcast network websites. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Colombia. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CU note nominator blocked as a checkuser confirmed sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't have time to add this in right now, but this article needs someone who can fish up the Colombian sourcing it needs. Here's a start: [6] (lengthy interview and profile) and [7] (includes a career stop not included in this article yet). He seems to be one of the principal radio and TV news presenters in the country. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sammi Brie, and also procedural, because there’s been a lot of SPAs and Socks nominating Mexican and Colombian articles that have lots of potential Spanish-language citations on Google. It’s not a coincidence about where these SPAs and Socks are coming from. Bearian (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just putting this one out there. I suspect strongly that someone or something from South/South-West Asia is targeting pro-Israeli and/or pro-Catholic persons. Bearian (talk) 12:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

Television proposed deletions

News Channel 3 Knowledge Bowl (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)
Trick mode (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)
Hessische Geschichten (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)
Relatively Speaking (game show) (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)
Real Magic TV (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)
Born Lucky (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)