Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Entertainment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts
Deletion Sorting
Project

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:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|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:
Purge page cache watch


Entertainment

[edit]

Mademoiselle Boop

[edit]
Mademoiselle Boop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet GNG or ANYBIO. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Pork

[edit]
John Pork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS that isn't standard coverage given to memes that crop up and trend for a bit. WP:BEFORE check pulls up shitposts on Google, non-reliable/non-significant articles on Google News. Chief concern is lasting significant notability, which this topic won't seem to broach. /over.throws/✎ 20:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable meme. An editor from Mars (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. John Pork is a notable virtual influencer and meme figure with significant cultural impact, especially on social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram. He has been widely covered in independent, reliable sources that meet WP:RS, including: Virtual Humans – A comprehensive profile discussing his origin, development, and online persona, Know Your Meme – An in-depth entry documenting the viral spread and meme status of “John Pork is calling”, Coverage across multiple TikTok trend compilations and analysis videos, indicating substantial public interest. John Pork is part of a growing phenomenon of virtual influencers - digital characters with human-like personas and followings - which has been covered in broader media contexts as well. This places him within an emerging field of digital media representation and internet culture, much like Lil Miquela or Shudu Gram, both of whom have existing articles. Additionally, the article can be improved with more detailed sourcing and context, and I am happy to help expand and strengthen it. However, deletion seems premature given the subject's notability and growing coverage. WikiExplorerNZ1 (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not a significant meme. Tiktok compilation vids do not count as reliable. Virtual humans is not really independent of the "virtual influencer" concept either. KnowYourMeme is literally listed as unreliable in WP:RSP. No reliable sources and no significant coverage.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I went digging on this one almost as if for mushrooms. Get it? Anyway, the sources for this are themselves often unreliable, such as the KnowYourMeme source which has been deemed unreliable on the perennial source list. WP:KNOWYOURMEME. This needs higher quality sources, and until those exist, the subject is not ready for a main space article and should be deleted. Iljhgtn (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom, this article fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS. The article's tone is also not encyclopedic. It definitely needs more work.--DesiMoore (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Know Your Meme should not be used to count toward notability. Madeleine (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This subject has actually been discussed in academic journals.[1][2][3][4] Second two are pretty obviously passing mentions, first two are a bit better, but don't rise to the level of SIGCOV for me. Leaning delete but would not oppose a redirect/merge should somebody think of a good target. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 03:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not seeing anything about "John Pork" in (2). (1) is also largely a passing mention of number of followers. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ? Other virtual influencers look like animals, like Geiko the gecko, Bee influencer, John Pork, Boffo the bear, and Puff Puff the penguin. You logged in through TWL? That being said I'm realizing I flipped the order when I was describing the sources. Second two are "passing with a few extra details", first two are just plane passing. That's what I get for AfD-ing while distracted. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 18:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also shouldn't afd while distracted. I thought the length of the summary page for (2) was the entire article. After taking a look at the actual full article, I would probably still call it a passing mention that would suggest John Pork is better covered as a part of the wider "virtual influencer" phenomenon. This article could be a candidate for a merge/blank/redirect instead of deletion if someone thinks it's notable enough to do the merge. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody should really make one of those awareness posters on the subject... I suppose I digress . Looking at the sources below, while non of them particularly impress me (the Sun and the Mail are deprecated, for starters), and I don't think they show notability, there's clearly enough for a mention as part of some larger scope article. I'll take my standard cop-out "delete, but explicitly with the caveat that future editors are allowed to ask this to be draftified/userfied at a later date should they find a suitable merge target". GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 06:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sorosrungruang, Tippayanet; Ameen, Nisreen; Hackley, Chris (December 2024). "How real is real enough? Unveiling the diverse power of generative AI‐enabled virtual influencers and the dynamics of human responses". Psychology & Marketing. 41 (12): 3124–3143. doi:10.1002/mar.22105. ISSN 0742-6046.
  2. ^ Allal-Chérif, Oihab; Puertas, Rosa; Carracedo, Patricia (March 2024). "Intelligent influencer marketing: how AI-powered virtual influencers outperform human influencers". Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 200: 123113. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123113.
  3. ^ Choudhry, Abhinav; Han, Jinda; Xu, Xiaoyu; Huang, Yun (2022-01-14). ""I Felt a Little Crazy Following a 'Doll'": Investigating Real Influence of Virtual Influencers on Their Followers". Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 6 (GROUP): 1–28. doi:10.1145/3492862. ISSN 2573-0142.
  4. ^ Yan, Ji; Xia, Senmao; Jiang, Amanda; Lin, Zhibin (April 2024). "The effect of different types of virtual influencers on consumers' emotional attachment". Journal of Business Research. 177: 114646. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114646.

References

  1. ^ "Who is Virtual Influencer and Pigman John Pork?". www.virtualhumans.org. 4 March 2019. Retrieved 6 April 2025.
  2. ^ Karruli, Kelsi (30 March 2023). "What is the 'John Pork is calling' meme? Wild TikTok craze explained". Mail Online. Retrieved 5 April 2025.
  3. ^ "John Pork meme explained as TikTok mourns death of pig meme | indy100". www.indy100.com. Retrieved 6 April 2025.
  4. ^ Spearman, Kahron (26 December 2023). "What are these weird John Pork memes?". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 6 April 2025.
  5. ^ "Is John Pork calling or is he dead? Chatting with the creator of the viral meme that had us all hooked". SCREENSHOT Media. Retrieved 6 April 2025.
  6. ^ Mutuku, Ryan (16 October 2023). "Is John Pork real? The truth about the social media sensation - Tuko.co.ke". www.tuko.co.ke. Retrieved 6 April 2025.
  7. ^ Anwar, Kamil (22 December 2023). "Who is John Pork & What is the John Pork Calling Meme?". Appuals. Retrieved 6 April 2025.
  8. ^ "Why 'John Pork' found dead is trending online". The US Sun. 30 March 2023. Retrieved 6 April 2025.

Sambucha

[edit]
Sambucha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined PROD. Non-notable YouTuber. A WP:BEFORE shows a lack of coverage in reliable sources, and notability is clearly lacking. No evidence that subject warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris talk! 21:52, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree that Sambucha appears to lack notability. The two sources that could qualify are the nytimes article about influencers going a different route than Mr Beast and the LADBible coverage of his AI experiment. These articles are not enough to merit inclusion under WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE, so I recommend deletion.
Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anonrfjwhuikdzz wouldn’t the UNILAD reference qualify too? Plant🌱man (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. LADBible and UNILAD are under the same company, and I'm not sure they're considered reliable. Could be worth a discussion. The UNILAD article read like "youtuber did thing" so I didn't really think it establishes notability for a biography of an influencer. Arguably the LADBible article is should also be discounted as it is similar in that it discusses "youtuber did AI thing" Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fair enough. Plant🌱man (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though he has millions of subscribers, that does not mean he is notable. An editor from Mars (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete. I believe that the article should be at least improved, and not deleted. But if it can't be, then delete. Quincy2293 (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sambucha is quite possibly my favourite YouTuber, but the fact that most of his sources are YouTube tells me that he does not meet the notability criteria atm. Despite there being possibly 3 examples of reliable SIGCOV in the references, the YouTube links far outnumber them. Additionally, Draft:Sambucha has been declined multiple times, and Sambucha was formerly a redirect to Shoenice, but it got deleted per this RfD discussion, after which this article was created. Plant🌱man (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AMP (streamer collective)

[edit]
AMP (streamer collective) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

most of the notable stuff are about a member of the group, not the group itself. the only significant coverage about the group are from the tubefilter article, the rest are mainly about kai cenat. Http iosue (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lineysha Sparx

[edit]
Lineysha Sparx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass GNG. The only piece of in-depth, independent coverage of this person is an interview from 2013 in Hotspots Magazine. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In my view she meets category one of WP:ENTERTAINER by having appeared on all three of RuPaul's Drag Race, Untucked! and also Skin Wars. On top of that, she also has some supplementary grounds for notability on the second ground: 2. "The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". Sparx co-created a drag plush doll, Lil' Poundcake, which has been the subject of enduring coverage and was also recently featured on RPDR All Stars. Some of that coverage re-discusses Sparx's run on the show, or even refers to her in the headline - and these articles come even from many years after her original appearance on Drag Race: see e.g. this 2021 article. The doll toy she co-created is "prolific" insofar as Chappell Roan has attributed it as inspiration for her drag performance look style. Over a decade after her original RPDR appearance, Roan is very much innovative and on the cutting edge of LGBTQ+ music and entertainment, so to me that is at least somewhat a 'prolific' contribution under the second criterion. When you combine the mentions of her as the co-creator of the Lil Poundcake Doll together with appearing on three reality TV shows, I think it's enough to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, even if narrowly. FlipandFlopped ツ 18:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Every contestant on Drag Race also appears on Untucked; it's a companion show to the main series. The Skin Wars appearance is a single episode guest spot—not significant. Being Alaska's mini-challenge partner and making Lil Poundcake is not a unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. You'll notice that it would be almost impossible to add any substantive content about Lil Poundcake to this article, because almost no source covering anything to do with Lil Poundcake has anything to say about Lineysha Sparx. If this made her notable, you'd think a reliable source or two would notice. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:40, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER and Flipandflopped above. There's enough coverage to justify a standalone article, which should be expanded and improved instead of deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above discussion. There is significant coverage. FWIW, I searched under the subject's birth name and drag name and discovered no connections between us, except a neighbor who "follows" her. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would there be a connection between you two? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a Small World After All, Six degrees of separation, and WP:DCOI mean that we're all connected, but if you're too closely connected, you shouldn't !vote in an AfD discussion. I routinely disclose my connections with the subjects of debates, even if we're just friends of friends. This is especially true with the Heritage Foundation actively working to expose alleged conflicts of interest and point of view violations, and because while I'm not notable, I've lived in neighborhoods that have lots of notable people. This message wasn't for you; it was for AfD regulars and the stalkers. By the way, how close to Antsiranana do you live? Bearian (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Nightclub

[edit]
Opera Nightclub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Orphan article authored in 2013, with an unaddressed maintenance tag for lack of notability also dating to 2013. Created and overwhelmingly most heavily edited (3/4 of its content) by an author with a conflict of interest. Subject venue closed in 2019[1] and is therefore unlikely ever to receive coverage that would confer notability. Wikipedia is not a compendium of every nightclub that has ever existed. Damon Killian (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better Than You Bay Bay

[edit]
Better Than You Bay Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AEW tag team where they wrestled together for only two months. One singles main event at All In is not good enough for an article. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Regards (CP) 21:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cage of Agony

[edit]
Cage of Agony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pretty much the same content as in Mogul Embassy and Gates of Agony. Suggest redirect to either of them. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Off-TV Play

[edit]
Off-TV Play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An attempted bold merge of the article was reverted, but rather than start a merge discussion I am starting an AfD instead due to my serious notability concerns. This article would seem to fail WP:GNG as there are no secondary sources that appear to talk specifically about Off-TV Play as a feature as opposed to the Wii U console as a whole or its controllers. Looking at the sources given upon the article's creation, they are all Wii U console reviews and not much seems to have changed. Notability is not inherited; that is a core tenet of notability, so a feature does not become notable solely because the device it is on is notable. Furthermore, with devices like the PlayStation Portal, the feature cannot be said to be unique any longer either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wii U GamePad This is just an feature of the Wii U GamePad- not notable enough for an independent article. TzarN64 (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this were just the list of games that supported Off-TV play, it would clearly be reasonable, and would not be appropriate to merge back to Wii U or other articles. That more can be added to discuss development and its reception such that it is more than just a list seems to make sense to have this as its own article separate from the console or controller. Masem (t) 17:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:SOURCESEXIST, please cite where the development information and major reception is. So far there has only been one cited source solely about the Off-TV Play feature. Re: Articles about the gamepad, there is already a gamepad article of course. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please re-read their comment, they did not make a SOURCESEXIST violating argument in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wii U Gamepad. This subject is almost entirely tied to its usage in the Gamepad, and is reflected in nearly all of the coverage. The bulk of arguments for keeping do not take into account Wikipedia:NOPAGE, which very strongly applies to this situation given the subject overlap, which would allow for a greater understanding of both subjects if they were to be discussed together. A separate article is not necessary in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think an attempt at talk page discussion would have been beneficial before nominating. Still, I struggle with the title "Off-TV Play", which sounds confusing/ambiguous outside the Wii U context. I don't think it's a good article as is, I'm unsure what the opposition to a merge is here. IgelRM (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:07, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The feature does appear to have reputable coverage and reception, and merging the information of this article into the GamePad article would either require a disproportionately long section or, if trimmed, would create a WP:UNDUE issue. Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Man Power Trip

[edit]
Two-Man Power Trip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WWF team lasting less than two months. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lasted that length due to injury to Triple H but in that two months, was a very significant part of their programming in early-mid 2001. No. It does not get deleted. Russ Jericho (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Russ Jericho: Could you explain the significance of the team with reliable sources (check WP:PW/RS)? BinaryBrainBug (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://prowrestling.fandom.com/wiki/The_Power_Trip 67.198.117.6 (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a comment on the possible sources, please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, agreed with the merge suggestion after this amount of time. Also, a single source, though not unreliable from what I can tell (though a bit on the tabloidy side) does not bode well here. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Styles and Christopher Daniels

[edit]
A.J. Styles and Christopher Daniels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

TNA team lasting just six months with very short title reigns. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Seems to rely on limited sources. May be better transfer some of this to AJ Styles main page and delete the article. Ramos1990 (talk)
It's not a redirect !vote if you're saying to delete the article. I'm not sure whether you want a redirect, merge, or delete? Your !vote seems to advocate for all three. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I beleive redirecting means the article ceases to exist, and is thus redirected to another article. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Short title reigns and tag team of the year is not good enough. For example, Kane and X-Pac, Kofi Kingston and R-Truth does not and should not have articles even though they were champions and won the award. Most of the content in this article seems excessive. The most significant part is their matches with America's Most Wanted and LAX, but that is summarized well in both men's articles. See AJ Styles#X Division Champion (2004–2007) and Christopher Daniels#X Division Champion (2005–2007). BinaryBrainBug (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you're advocating for a redirect, please tell us where to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother: The Boss

[edit]
Big Brother: The Boss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content already exists on Big Brother (franchise) article. Stand alone article does not meet wp:GNG. Variety312 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind slowing down television-related AfDs, please? and in particular, if you suggest redirects or merging, you can start a discussion on the TPs of the concerned pages. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 00:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that this is not notable here. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:09, 7 April 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) 02:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor – A sziget

[edit]
Survivor – A sziget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lots of edits since 2011 by no WP:RS. merge with larger article on Survivor television program. Survivor (franchise) Variety312 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 30 March 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) 02:20, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Entertainment&oldid=1284376167"