Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Entertainment

Shortcuts

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Entertainment. 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|Entertainment|~~~~}} 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 Entertainment. 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/Entertainment/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Entertainment

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

The result was redirect‎ to Sonya Deville#Various alliances (2021–2025). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Fusion Collective

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

Short lived team with no significant achievements. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Wrestling. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have made a quick search. [1] Lack of in-deep coverage around the stable. Mostly WP:ROUTINE --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sonya Deville#Various alliances (2021–2025). Does not qualify as an article, but the stable was a part of career of Sonya Deville, Shayna Baszler, and Zoey Stark. Two reasons to keep the redirect: 1) Readers search for it and they look for some info about this stable 2) Like many stables/groups in WWE, there could be a chance for the revival of this stable in the future with new members. A redirect and summary works better for this case. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any support for ATD redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 01:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect' to Sonya Deville#Various alliances (2021–2025) per Mann Mann. Ramos1990 (talk) 02:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glamarella

AfDs for this article:

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

Tag team lasting less than a year with very few notable appearances. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Wrestling. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:30, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, tellingly, Newspapers.com has nothing, and searches of other databases did not find reliable sources with sigcov. It is mentioned in the articles of both members, and I think that's the treatment it deserves. Please do ping if anyone finds more. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Allin Kempthorne

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

I've AFD'd this, but actually I think it should be redirected to Wriggler (video game). There doesn't appear to be any independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the subject of this article. Sourcing is all tabloid news (The Mirror, The Sun, Metro) or passing mentions. Simply appearing on BGT (and not being recognised...) does not indicate notability. Simply being a bit-part actor in numerous films does not indicate notability. Additionally I have WP:PROMO/WP:COI concerns here.

They wrote the ZX Spectrum game Wriggler together with their twin when they were at school, and this game is clearly notable, but nothing else they have done appears to be notable.

Also nominating The Vampires of Bloody Island for deletion (no need to redirect this), which is the film Allin Kempthorne created. The only coverage that could be found for this is blatantly promotional ("we were forced to bring forward the release of this film because of an email campaign that no-one but us is the source for existing") and from sources of dubious reliability. Simply being nominated for a Twitter Shorty Award does not indicate notability.

Similarly also Learning Hebrew for the same reasons.FOARP (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Businesspeople, and Video games. FOARP (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Magic, Television, Entertainment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. MimirIsSmart (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable, concurring per nom. IgelRM (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@IgelRM@MimirIsSmart - Also redirect for the two films? Or delete? FOARP (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't make sense to redirect film article to a game. I would say Delete but this combined AFD is a bit confusing. IgelRM (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom with WP:NPOV disputed and as for the the next one, since it exists, redirect to a suitable one since Allin's does meet neutrality and COI as suggested or keep if there are more sources. I will suggest we keep one worthy, I will work on it and find sourcs to redirect others to newly edited one per WP:ATD as one can argue WP:TOOSOON.
HilssaMansen19 (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no mention of Wriggler anywhere in the article, or any sources for it, so it's not a legitimate redirect term. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, are you criticizing that Kempthorne involvement in Wriggler isn't sourced well? IgelRM (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think what @Ritchie333 is trying to say is that, since Wriggler isn't even mentioned in the current article on Kempthorne, it's a WP:ASTONISH issue for anyone looking for info on Kempthorne. I'm inclined to agree. Anyone who searches for "Allin Kempthorne" will still be able to find Wriggler (video game) in the search results, they just won't be automatically directed there. -- asilvering (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, but then I could just add a mention of Wriggler to the article now and defeat the argument? However, I'm fine with Delete as the game doesn't appear particularly relevant to the person's career. IgelRM (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Because there are three articles under review, I think this needs more eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:26, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary championships in WWE

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

Another fancraft article just like Secondary championships in All Elite Wrestling. Relevant content exist already on several other articles such as List of former championships in WWE. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Wrestling. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per OP. Information largely repeated from other articles. — Czello ^(music) 10:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BADFORK, similar to the other AfD. --Mann Mann (talk) 16:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are List of current champions in WWE and List of former championships in WWE. There is nothing new on this article. Beyond the superlative reigns, which is fancruft. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the arguments RE fancraft and repeated sources. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the main arguments being repeated information and fancruft, should not the World, Women's, and Tag Team championships in WWE articles also be up for deletion? This article was created by myself due to one not existing, and it covers a certain WWE championship type, just like the other articles do. I see no reason for this article being deleted and not the others as mentioned above. This article is also only around a year old, so there is still time to add new information to make it more unique and informative and less repetitive, as the article is still fairly new. Selar0m (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a reason for keep; if anything, it's a reason to delete other similar articles. — Czello ^(music) 18:46, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your argument proves why this article should be deleted. The age of article does not matter at all. Some articles remain for several years on WP, and then someday the community decide to delete them. You created this article in 4 December 2023, so you had plenty of time to improve it (which I doubt it, because the topic itself is redundant). If you think those articles have similar issues like yours, feel free to nominate them for deletion. --Mann Mann (talk) 02:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are correct, I recognize that I let my soft spot for this article overtake logic and I apologize. I do think the other ones should be put up for deletion as well, it's just saddening to see it go. Selar0m (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment in Uganda

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

Loose collection of different "entertainment" topics. Doesn't really provide any extra value as a list. (WP:LISTPURP) --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 03:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Uganda. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary championships in All Elite Wrestling

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

Mostly fancraft content with the relevant parts already at List of current champions in All Elite Wrestling and rest of the championship articles. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Wrestling. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 12:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BADFORK. Another similar article needs to be reviewed too: Secondary championships in WWE --Mann Mann (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge to List of AEW championships badfork. Why have two separate lists for titles? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per OP. Information largely repeated from other articles. — Czello ^(music) 10:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:15, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Romney Am Dram

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

Fails WP:GNG, Before search yeilds nothing. GNews yeild no result. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Entertainment, and England. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single independent ref cited, and a completely WP:MILL amateur theatre group. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only bring up their website and facebook posts, which are all primary sources. What's in the article now are simple confirmation of various performances. Not meeting notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7 - Literally the first thing that pops up on my end is this Wikipedia article's talk page! This fails WP:GNG and WP:MILL at the same time. JTZegers (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability or sources. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This lacks RSes, there is only one source and it is not independent. This definitely lacks notability and should not be included. Gjb0zWxOb (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Alton Towers#Main Past Attractions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:54, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twirling Toadstool

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

No coverage in RS PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable theme park ride. No coverage i can find Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alton Towers#Main Past Attractions – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Redirection or Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with @Svartner that this can be redirected to the alton towers page. I will add some info from this article to the table but the ride is not independently notable. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alton Towers: No reason to have an article by it's own. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trackloaded

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

Non-notable website. Fails NCORP or the GNG. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Trackloaded meets the General Notability Guideline (GNG) through significant coverage in independent, reliable sources:

- Mentioned in Pulse Nigeria, referencing its lyrics/media section
- Cited by Legit.ng in entertainment industry commentary
- Awarded "Best Entertainment News Media Platform" by MEA Markets in 2024
- Recognized as "Best Entertainment & Media Platform – West Africa" at Innovation in Business Awards 2024
- Reached 4.4 million listeners on Audiomack, indicating real-world cultural and public impact

The article is neutrally written and sourced to meet the notability criteria under both GNG and NCORP for media-related topics. It documents a notable Nigerian digital platform with verified third-party recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oloyede2003 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources in the article and the ones given by Oloyede2003 aren't reliable or only mention the subject. I haven't found any other RS. WP:NCORP isn't met. -- Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Nigeria. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Music, and Entertainment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Norlk (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Trackloaded meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines through independent coverage, recognized industry awards, and multiple media citations. It was reviewed by an experienced editor (User:Skynxnex), confirming its neutrality and quality. The article documents a verifiable and notable digital platform. — Oloyede2003 (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two notes @Oloyede2003: you should only cast a single bolded WP:!VOTE per discussion, so I'd suggest striking this one. Secondly, I marked it as reviewed as per the WP:New pages patrol guidelines since its notability will be evaluated by the community since it was nominated for deletion so further new page reviews don't need to review it. I, at that time, took no opinion on this discussion. Skynxnex (talk) 02:03, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Skynxnex (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing this as notable subject. The sources do not clearly establish notability. Could not find an appropriate redirect. Ramos1990 (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steppin' Out (magazine)

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

Non-notable magazine that is apparently out of publication. Unable to find any sources discussing it. The single source that was standing to the article is to a website that was removed or otherwise blacklisted from archive.org, which is a red flag. Further, about the only thing I found on this publication indicates that its last article was published about four years ago. Probably fails other specific notability guidelines, but it's a clear WP:GNG fail. —C.Fred (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Entertainment, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Delete 162.213.23.84 (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be deleted but there was no need for that stuff on my Talk page. I didn't have any rude attitude towards editors at all. I did nothing wrong and was removing unsourced crap from that page. I was totally in the right dude. 162.213.23.84 (talk) 23:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I stumbled on this while doing spam cleanup (the home page has been usurped by the infamous WP:JUDI gang). Looking at the Wayback Machine, the site has been around for about 20 years. That's a long time. Surely there would be coverage about it somewhere, to write an article with. Today is AfD Day 7 (doomsday). Encourage anyone who has the time to really check around for sources. -- GreenC 15:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:06, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:46, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing just isn't there to support notability. Mondo Times seems to list every publication that exists and relies on company-submitted information. It only has 3 sentences of coverage and probably isn't a reliable source anyway. --Here2rewrite (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now This one is kind of a bummer; going by their Facebook page it looks like they were an early business that died right at COVID because it served as more of a New York metro (more Jersey side specifically) events guide, a la the Village Voice but in the more suburban magazine form and with a focus on local celebrities. I know regional Jersey and NYC coverage is there, but it might be rare and more things like the New York Post picking up on a photoshoot or interview as print media usually doesn't cover other print media. Nathannah • 📮 02:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation if better sourcing is found, per WP:TNT. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like some before has been done, will include a delete to end the afd unless better sources are found. -- GreenC 16:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. per improvements made and sourcing identified Star Mississippi 03:39, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Baker (entertainer)

AfDs for this article:

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

Was nominated by Badbluebus back in February, and was closed as a soft delete, with only one other editor !voting for delete. No oppose votes. There simply is not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that they pass notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:45, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I see some room for improvement, maybe a few more better sources, so I am employing a weak version of WP:BASIC. Barr Theo (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in the Seattle Times, Oklahoman, Idaho State Journal, and Daily State News. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle article only briefly mentions him, the Olkahoman isn't much better. Idaho State is the only decent source. Last source talks with people after a state fair, saying how good he was. I'm not sure most of these help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still a !delete, I don't see any new sources from the last month when this came up at AfD, that would change my mind. Oaktree b (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The image File:Bowling-head-sharp.jpg is AI-generated. I have nominated it for deletion on Commons. I haven't checked the sources yet, but it seems this article was created by the editor who uploaded that image, mostly in one huge edit (diff). Toadspike [Talk] 10:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, the sources in that diff seem okay. I think Dclemens1971's sources show that he meets the GNG – some of them include lots of quotes, which are not independent, but they also review his performances (not always positively), which is clearly independent coverage to me. I'm going with keep on notability. Toadspike [Talk] 10:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main significant coverage I see is Guinness world record, but barely. Aside from that, not sure of he is that notable. Last time this was nominated (March of 2025) it was deleted. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I read the sources linked by Dclemens1971 and to me, they clearly establish notability. I completely disagree with Oaktree's assessment and would encourage the closing admin to actually glance through them. The Seattle Times article and the Oklahoman articles are far, far above the threshold needed to meet WP:SIGCOV - he is interviewed and discussed in depth in the Seattle Times piece and his name is mentioned over 17 times. His name is literally in the title of the Oklahoman article. Flip^and Flopped ㋡ 21:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: alright, as a closing admin, I've followed Flipandflopped's advice so the actual closing admin doesn't have to: this is obvious sigcov. I assume Oaktree has some kind of browser extension that is blocking the articles from expanding fully. -- asilvering (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Proposed deletions

Comment on the talk pages of the articles, not here.

Entertainment

Categories