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 Conglomeration

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

Short-lived faction with little to no significance. Members no longer affiliated according to AEW roster website and probably would not be brought back. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was tempted many times to propose the article. Short lived stable, no in-deep reliable sources about it. I dont know the obsesion of AEW with stables. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are shorter articles with less significance. This faction technically has not even disbanded, two of the "former" members are wrestling on the same team in a match tonight. All of the former members (except one who works full time in Japan) are still active in AEW. This article shouldn't be anywhere near deletion. SwitchMIX (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable in my opinion. Lemonademan22 (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Paragon (professional wrestling)

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

Duplicate of The Undisputed Era. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

been told that until there's a reliable source that indicates paragon is a contiuation the undisputed era its own article is for the best for now Imdeadinside12 (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Imdeadinside12 What source would that be? Lemonademan22 (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what you said on the Undisputed Era talk page? Imdeadinside12 (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Imdeadinside12 Negative. I said it would be a better option to make a seperate article than continue The Undisputed Era one as tha would be original resarch. Lemonademan22 (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t that what happened tho? So what’s the proble? Imdeadinside12 (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Imdeadinside12 I do not know. I didn't nominate the article for deletion. You would have to ask the nominator that question. Lemonademan22 (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

like Lemonademan22 said i think it would be best to keep it a seperate article than continue the UE one since that would be original research but we can easily merge this with the UE when a reliable source says otherwise. Imdeadinside12 (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spurs Sports & Entertainment

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

The holding company is not-notable and fails WP:NCORP. The article is primarily content about the San Antonio Spurs, not the holding company, then a WP:SYNTHed-together reporting of the holding company's portfolio. Longhornsg (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Sports, Basketball, and Texas. Longhornsg (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sports teams holding companies often are notable. Doing a before search brings up many hits for the company. Mostly books related to sports management. But I agree, the article should be redone to be less focused on the Spurs. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hits yes, but it's WP:ROUTINE coverage, which is what I found in my before. Are the cites in the books WP:SIGCOV of SS&E specifically? Longhornsg (talk) 18:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some books have had multiple pages dedicated to SS&E, such as these, and they are national authors too rather than local San Antonio coverage.

https://books.google.com/books?id=C9SbUYGyCvcC&pg=PA335&dq=Spurs+Sports+%26+Entertainment&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiinI7vwMSNAxXTPUQIHcnLDN8Q6AF6BAgMEAM

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Transforming_San_Antonio/-ETpCAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Spurs+Sports+%26+Entertainment&pg=PA180&printsec=frontcover

https://books.google.com/books?id=gVlkCQAAQBAJ&pg=PP3&dq=Spurs+Sports+%26+Entertainment&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiinI7vwMSNAxXTPUQIHcnLDN8Q6AF6BAgNEAM

https://books.google.com/books?id=ZSziAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&dq=Spurs+Sports+%26+Entertainment&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwijo4DawcSNAxWgO0QIHftkCnw4ChDoAXoECAUQAw ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, Football, and Ice hockey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The sources present in the article already demonstrates WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This just meets WP:GNG. I actually do think that content like this article, Green Bay Packers, Inc., and so on would be better contextualized in the team's article, but I don't see a basis in policy to delete them, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: References used in this article demonstrate the notability of the subject. Passes WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep. This source on Forbes is independent and reliable and counts towards GNG. this source is secondary and onpy partially contributes to GNG. The remaining sources are passing mentions, blogs, or not independent. Overall sourcing needs improvement. Flibirigit (talk) 11:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 15:52, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Several articles are present that will establish notability.Goodboyjj (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - And I mean weak. Holding companies typically are not notable as its their holdings that normally generate the WP:ORGCRIT needed for notability and notability would not be inherent simply because its the parent. However, the fact it gets attention in numerous books would push this to notability for me. Note that the Forbes reference would fall under WP:FORBESCON so I would not consider it for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Per the available sources. The subject passes WP:GNG.MichaelRichard67 (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next Management

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

Non-notable modeling agency. Simply a laundry list of clients. Mostly unsourced, and the sources that do appear are simply announcements or basic coverage of a new client. No WP:SIGCOV indicating the agency is notable for any other reason. ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent RS which meet WP:ORGCRIT. Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:07, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, Fashion, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Plenty of coverage: [1], [2], [3]. 95.134.245.233 (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Next Management meets the criteria for inclusion under both WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT. The agency has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources well beyond basic client announcements. Notable third-party sources include:

The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2022/may/28/jean-luc-brunel-abuse-six-women-epstein) – in-depth investigative coverage linking the agency’s founding to industry-wide issues and prominent figures.

The Daily Beast (https://www.thedailybeast.com/steven-mnuchins-mysterious-link-to-creepy-epstein-model-scout-jean-luc-brunel) – coverage of the agency’s early corporate structure and legal disputes.

Business Insider (https://www.businessinsider.com/brunel-epstein-friend-and-alleged-rapist-arrested-at-paris-airport-2020-12) – connects the agency’s legacy to broader criminal investigations tied to its co-founder.

Anadolu Agency (https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/epsteins-french-associate-jean-luc-brunel-found-dead-in-paris-prison/2507523) – further international coverage of its ties to figures of major global news interest.

These sources go beyond client rosters and establish Next Management as a historically significant entity in the modeling and fashion industries. It was co-founded by Faith Kates, a widely recognized industry figure, and Jean-Luc Brunel, a central figure in ongoing international legal and journalistic scrutiny. The agency has also been at the heart of high-profile litigation and internal disputes which were widely reported and are clearly encyclopedic in nature.

This is not a vanity agency profile, it documents a company central to a major international scandal, referenced in multiple mainstream outlets. Deletion would erase a vital contextual link in the documentation of modeling industry accountability and the Epstein network investigations. WPisOpinion (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can only read the Guardian and Anadolu articles (others paywalled), but I would characterize these as passing mentions of Next Management -- simply mentioning that this firm was created in the midst of the larger controversy these articles are actually about. Doesn't really rise to the level of SIGCOV in my initital estimation. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 11:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some more non-AI-based input would be great.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Malhan

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NYOUTUBER. No lasting, independent coverage in reliable sources. Purely social media fame WP:NOTPROMO applies. BharatGanguly (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Film, Entertainment, India, and Delhi. BharatGanguly (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would like to see significant coverage. What we have now are just news items. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Searches turned up enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to support meeting WP:GNG. B-Factor 17:19, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of wp:SIGCOV and fails Wp:YOUTUBER. Zuck28 (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and disagree with B-Factor. If you want to keep this article then show reliable sources. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:07, 1 June 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 no consensus‎. Given that there was a very recent AfD that ended in keep, I am going to just close this now rather than dragging things out. Malinaccier (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manisha Rani

AfDs for this article:

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

Sources cited are short entertainment writeups, interviews, and tabloid style pieces that lack depth, independence, and sustained coverage. There's a heavy reliance on promotional content, social media mentions, and news aggregators, rather than neutral, in-depth profiles by reliable third-party sources. BharatGanguly (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, News media, Film, Entertainment, India, and Bihar. BharatGanguly (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD discussion in February 2025 was keep. What has changed since then? DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:59, 23 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.

Isaiah Martin

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

Delete. The article says he is a candidate in a special election and a political advisor. Candidates are not inherently notable or inherently generic. I see nothing about his 2025 candidacy or his 2024 almost candidacies that would meet any sort of ten year test of significance. Senior advisor is a vague title and one that almost certainly does not apply to Martin. He does not show up on Legistorm, or in any FEC disbursements, and Houston Landing describes him as a former intern in October 2023.

The only other area I want to preemptively address is the sources in the article mention that he has a presence on TikTok. WP:ENTERTAINER lays out that either 1) the person has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or 2) the person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. The first one is not relevant. The second one I do not feel he meets. Numerous people confront and/or make fun of MAGA. There is nothing about the content or having 275,000 followers with 20,000 views per week (per a citation in the article) that meets #2. Yes, there was a keep vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kat Abughazaleh, but that sourcing was beyond the mere existence of her social media following (which is larger than Martin's) and her candidacy.

This page should be deleted due to some combination of WP:TOOSOON, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOPAGE, and not meeting WP:GNG. I am agnostic as to a redirect to 2025 Texas's 18th congressional district special election. Also, as I am going to end all of these now that election season is afoot, never forget everyone, an article about you or someone you like isn't necessarily a good thing. Mpen320 (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the very comprehensive nomination. I would not oppose a redirect to next year's congressional election, such as 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas. Bearian (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per extensive nomination. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete candidates are not inherently notable for Wikipedia - I would have !voted delete on the other candidate as well. SportingFlyer T·C 17:41, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nomination rationale and further find that the article subject isn’t notable simply by virtue of being a political candidate. Specifically, WP:RS coverage has not reached a WP:SUSTAINED level that would justify notability under WP:NPOL. ZachH007 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I have just come across this AfD; I will not have time to research and add additional sources by the time it closes, but I would like to put some effort into doing so, and turning the current article into a draft would facilitate that.Sumana Harihareswara 03:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As it stands, there is a pretty clear consensus against notability. Relisting to give Sumana Harihareswara a chance to take a look into the sourcing as per their vote. But if there is not notability, sending to draft is just delaying the inevitable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:39, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very non-notable candidate, went to school, ran for office, is Catholic... This is a biography to help the candidate. Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2025 Texas's 18th congressional district special election. Per nom, this seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON and the subject struggles to pass WP:GNG. He may or may not become more notable in the future, but WP:CRYSTAL applies as well.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cosm (company)

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

I stumbled upon this article after looking at the LiveLike VR article that was nominated for deletion. Three sources are given in the article, one of which is a press release, and another doesn't exist at all. Fails WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 May 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, Sports, California, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sure this can fall under WP:PROMO as well. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; widespread coverage. // Gargaj (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:40, 28 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of world champions in WWE born outside the United States

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

Seems to be original research and fancruft. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Wrestling. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 08:34, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason as bundle AFD:

BinaryBrainBug (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them. Those lists are just fancruft, out of scope, and catalogue-like. They are not even acceptable/passable as category. --Mann Mann (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am literally using these lists today as a refrence 71.43.164.34 (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL Geschichte (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This information is relevant, taking into account the internalization that WWE has had throughout its history. EnglishLuicheto (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Internalization? Geschichte (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For an engagement to reach consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HilssaMansen19 (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Mann Mann said, it's FANCRUFT. I though these articles were deleted. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:47, 22 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: thrd relist per Star M above
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 04:54, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

Entertainment

Categories