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

Zach Shallcross

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

At first, I was hesitant to nominate this article for deletion primarily due to WP:NACTOR. Then I realize that WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG (or WP:N itself) matter more, especially per WP:BIOSPECIAL. I admire this person's third-place in The Bachelorette (US) season 19, but then I wonder whether that finish and his major role as The Bachelor in season 27 (US) would suffice anymore. The aftermath of season 27 can be already explained in The Bachelor (American TV series). Furthermore, he is well known for primarily his major role in The Bachelor. Thus, per WP:BIO1E, if not WP:BLP1E, and WP:BIOSPECIAL, should be redirected to The Bachelor (American TV series) season 27. George Ho (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Television, American football, and California. George Ho (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eirini Nikolopoulou

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

Article has history of promotion, still lots of uncited info and likely unreliable sources, can't find much coverage Shredlordsupreme (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest Previews

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

An amalgamation of information on different programmes developed by various European broadcasters to showcase the songs competing in each edition of the Eurovision Song Contest, which were a mandatory requirement for participation in the song contest from 1971 until the mid 90s. None of the individual shows created by each broadcaster are related however, save for the same music videos as submitted by each participating broadcaster being provided to all other broadcasters by the European Broadcasting Union, therefore as the article currently stands there is no singular subject being covered. There is a slight bias towards the UK shows, however this UK production does not meet notability guidelines (WP:GNG; WP:SIGCOV) to support a stand-alone article. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:56, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards Delete because the article seems to be an essay-like work of WP:OR and is almost entirely unsourced. There's no evidence the preview productions have been a subject of independent study. The previews aren't mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia so there's nowhere to redirect the article to. Wikipedia isn't intended to be a fan site for the ESC. Sionk (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tawag ng Tanghalan finalists (season 3)

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

This was submitted to PROD but was deprodded. No chance of this cruft being merged into somewhere. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tawag ng Tanghalan season 1. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:15, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every single source is a WP:PRIMARY WP:YOUTUBE violation to the ABS-CBN channel and at this point if someone wants to create a WP:NEWSORGINDIA equivalent for Filipino television shows, I would support it wholeheartedly. Nathannah • 📮 20:40, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think it would be common sense that ABS-CBN, GMA and TV5 sources cannot be used as references for creations of ABS-CBN, GMA and TV5, respectively. We can be creative on what "creations" mean (Bini (group) and It's Showtime are creations of ABS-CBN, but NCAA Season 100 isn't a creation of GMA, but anything relating to its TV production is). Howard the Duck (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirety of sourcing is primary, non-independent, or self published. No indication that this subject is notable as a collection. Fits squarely into WP:LISTCRUFT. nf utvol (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another WP:LISTCRUFT for this competition. What's worse is that it's entirely sourced from its episodes on YouTube. AstrooKai (Talk) 09:41, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tawag ng Tanghalan: All-Star Grand Resbak season 1

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Nothing found in a BEFORE to satisfy notability requirements. Would not be opposed to a REDIRECT. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. DonaldD23 talk to me 15:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entire article is sourced to either the ABS-CBN website, Facebook, and YouTube channel and it just needs a good dose of dynamite. Nathannah • 📮 20:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another database-like articles for this competition that should be deleted like its season articles. Besides being barely sourced, its only six sources are just primary sources, doesn't help in establishing its notability. AstrooKai (Talk) 09:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/End Day)

DYET-TV

AfDs for this article:

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

~~There is no significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. It can be redirected to TV5 Network for good. Trishie042512 (talk) 07:29, 27 July 2025 (UTC)~~ Checkuser note: I have struck this nomination because the nominator's account is a confirmed sockpuppet; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/吉姆塔布斯. Mz7 (talk) 03:22, 29 July 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 July 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:42, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TV5 Network as otherwise fails WP:SIGCOV. Trishie042512 (talk) 07:46, 27 July 2025 (UTC) Duplicate nominator vote.[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to TV5 Network. No source is likely to turn up. I note that AfD 1 was procedurally closed due to socks, and Trishie shows signs of being in the same group of socks (I will be filing SPI). However, I agree that the station is unlikely to have enough sourcing. I've perpetually been yelling at Philippines TV editors to up their game, but it's hard with the lack of good available sources. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:17, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Stivic

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable article on a non-notable TV character. The character of Joey Stivic is a minor character in the All in the Family franchise if you can call it a franchise except for the spin-off Gloria. There was hardly an improvement since the last Afd back in 2008. There are barely any sources verifying that the character is notable in general or like the character of Archie Bunker. Mostly anything on this character found online is trivial information.

Only one link isn't dead and is about the toy.

Only thing of any coverage is the Ideal Toy Company doll. That alone does not justify an article on this character. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Popular culture. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the decision is not to keep this article, I recommend merging to All in the Family#Supporting characters in lieu of deletion. I recommended "keep" in the first AfD in 2008, but I am reserving judgment for now to see if the article can be improved or at least better cited. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:01, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mentions are clearly trivial in the The Complete Directory book. The other hyperlinks in the article cannot really be considered reliable sources in the first place, and they each at most have a paragraph on the doll, not even the character. Juxlos (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Juxlos. The sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs and don't really focus on this character. We can't build a reliable article without WP:SIGCOV. Once the unreliable information is cleaned up, this could be redirected to All in the Family#Supporting characters, per WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of DuMont Television Network affiliates (by U.S state)

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

Earlier this year, the list of List of DuMont Television Network affiliates was overhauled. It seems that the user who had been maintaining the original list, TheWiki93, forked his version out after having reverted the major overhaul in progress on several occasions. There is no need for both lists, and this results in a WP:POVFORK situation. While the still-extant U.S. networks have by-state lists, this is not necessary for DuMont as a defunct network (List of former UPN affiliates, for instance, does not have a by-state counterpart) or with the table sorting available in the revamped list. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and United States of America. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if it is overhauled, then the user should make some changes on what they are missing on. If the station is not on the 'by U.S state' section, then it must be deleted and be changed. Me and I just wanted it to be included there since it was or was trying to be a competitor for the big three networks at that time. But thanks. I understand. TheWiki93 (talk) 19:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the forking of the article came with reverts to all of the corrections that were made in the first place. This forking, along with past reversions to the prior style and citations, comes off as going against WP:OWN. It's a solution to a problem that never existed. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 20:20, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to parse most of what you mean, but I can pull out one item and respond to it. DuMont was competing with the major networks, yes. But 70 years after it ceased to provide programming, we don't need the same list structure we have for the major networks. Because of the way television was in the 1950s—far fewer stations, network programming sometimes dispersed, and non-interconnected affiliates that received programming on film or kinescope—the identity of a network affiliate was a lot less concrete. Especially if you're the fourth of four networks. (Full disclaimer: While I did not carry out the overhaul, I did assist Nathan with sourcing.) Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:52, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that a user like me should make an article based on the original one but to be change as a version of it. Think of it as a table or by state. TheWiki93 (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be largely the same list with a different intro paragraph, with different formatting in the box. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as the editor who cleaned up the original list and removed multiple inaccuracies, outdated, broken, dead or self-published references, and stations that were never affiliated with Dumont (or were proper affiliates prior to May 1955). The most egregious of these errors was the purely fictional "WTLA" in "Tonawanda, New York", that is inexplicably again on this forked list. It is not only unnecessary, it is also out-of-date and unreliable. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 20:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keepː I am currently doing some changes to the article. Deleting some stations that are not real or changing tables to its current view are on the way so far. TheWiki93 (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, it still does not meet the merits of why this forked list should even exist in the first place. Even if it was fully corrected, it's still duplicative and redundant because it's a list for a broadcast network that died 70 years ago. Only one article is necessary for the subject matter and it's the original list. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 00:13, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article is called "List of DuMont Television Network affiliates (by U.S state)". It's the same as the original list but within the states the affiliated stations are from. What happens if people who are new to Wikipedia don't know how to go to a list when it's by U.S state? They need it for their studies. At school as in from a project or a homework. It's important to students while it is important to historians and expert Wikipedians. TheWiki93 (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. There exists no need for this article because we do not need a DuMont affiliate list that is separated by state. Judging by the edit history, the original list was only forked because you disagreed with my overhaul and sought to revert it back to how you had set it up, which totally fails WP:POVFORK. That's not how we do things. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 00:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time someone has put an former broadcasting network list by U.S. state. Give them a change, ok? TheWiki93 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not justification for why this forked list should be kept. There are standards and guidelines to follow. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 02:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not clear to me how this differs from List of DuMont Television Network affiliates, which is organized by and can be sorted by state. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Haven't you guys visit the talk page? It said that it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. If someone seen this article, they would just edit it, make few changes, or just change the introduction. TheWiki93 (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know the two articles looked the same and have some same writing. But they are two different articles. One of them I've just made for the past weeks. Sometimes we make mistakes and mistakes could be made. TheWiki93 (talk) 00:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The original list article is not going to be deleted because this fork gets deleted. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 00:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All I am talking about is you can't even delete my article. I spend hard work on it. TheWiki93 (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's just an edition to the original article with my credit. Be thankful to me, okay? TheWiki93 (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how AfD works. Please read WP:POVFORK. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 01:02, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it though. Still I am trying to improve it. TheWiki93 (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I'm just an 18-year-old. I am trying my best to improve. The more I try, the more I'll get better at. TheWiki93 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake here is that this was an unnecessary fork. (I bypassed proposed deletion because I figured we'd end up here anyway.) Let me explain something about attribution that I am picking up on: you have it reversed. The main list contains edit history items for the fork list (your list). It is the main list, List of DuMont Television Network affiliates, that cannot be deleted—not yours. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 00:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just wait and see if it can or cannot be deleted. I know I had it reversed but I just liked that version better. So I decided to copy it to an different article, made some few changes as for today and that's it. It will now be a standalone article. TheWiki93 (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheWiki93: It says, "Text and/or other creative content from this version of List of DuMont Television Network affiliates was copied or moved into List of DuMont Television Network affiliates (by U.S state) with this edit on 10:06, 03 July 2025. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists." That means that we can't delete List of DuMont Television Network affiliates -- the former page -- while List of DuMont Television Network affiliates (by U.S state) -- the latter page -- exists, but it doesn't say anything about deleting List of DuMont Television Network affiliates (by U.S state). The question is why we would want to have both of those pages, instead of just one of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
̊@Metropolitan90ː Maybe I was semi-wrong. There could be two of them but for right now, it could be a debate. Listen carefullyː It is my article, I created it, and I chose to keep it under any circumstances. TheWiki93 (talk) 01:39, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"It is my article, I created it, and I chose to keep it under any circumstances" is a blatant violation of WP:OWN. We as editors do NOT own any content on here at all. No one does. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 02:30, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can download a copy for your own use, but this is part of the wiki community at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll make sure to do that. TheWiki93 (talk) 23:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheWiki93, I'd like you to read Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Sometimes, you have to learn when to let things go, whether it be about article content or even an entire article's existence. I have actually taken articles I've written to deletion processes. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 02:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I guess you're right. An article is just an article. What I said was a violation and will promise to not say that ever again. Everyone does not own their article. I'm sorry. TheWiki93 (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WBJU

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

No sources; largely promotional; could merge into Bob Jones University. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Education, and South Carolina. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google shows this lacks independent sourcing Given the nature of the school it may have some due weight there .
Czarking0 (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bob Jones University#Fine arts: it is mentioned there, and this is the standard alternative to deletion for non-notable student media (I don't see much to merge, but that does not preclude redirection). (Note that the radio side is a part 15 station and the TV side appears to be a cable service with little if any availability off-campus; even in the "wild west" days of pre-2021 when we simply assumed notability for FCC-licensed facilities even when there wasn't any to be had, we were not as forgiving for unlicensed stations.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:44, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:25, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Interfaith Broadcasters

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

Hasn't been updated in a long time aside from templates; mainly promotional. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Georgia (U.S. state). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google shows a lack of reliable independent sources. As for presumed notability, the fact that it is only locally broadcasted high channel makes me say no.

Czarking0 (talk) 05:30, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep significant coverage here, also some of their programming is being preserved in a museum collection as shown here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enterr10 Bangla

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Soft deleted back in October 2024 but was refunded at the request of IP. References are brief mentions, routine announcements, churnalism or otherwise unreliable. @RangersRus: who was the only other participant in the discussion. CNMall41 (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing has changed except for an additional source. Source 1 is small article about Enterr10 starting two more channels, source 2 is unreliable, Source 3 is a maybe unreliable but still has no significant coverage and source 4 is also unreliable. All sources are poor with no significant coverage on the channel and fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIRS so fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:12, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article appears to be promotional and clearly lacks notability, it's little more than a list of programs that appear on a TV channel - Theres no secondary sources proving this channel is nothing more than run of the mill. GeekBurst (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage of the channel itself. Most programs listed seem to be dubbed instead of native-language original productions. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CHOB-TV

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

Non-notable Indigenous TV station; just two sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Two sources are enough to demonstrate notability. Лисан аль-Гаиб (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The two sources are government documents that, while reliable, do not contribute to notability. This is a very small station with no sources identifiable that would demonstrate notability. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:01, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Central

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

Non-notable telecom company; only source may be promotional. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and North Dakota. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Technology, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. LightlySeared (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article created by a serial sockpuppet who contributed the most to the page even well after they were blocked (and who has made this organization miserable with vile and racist vandalism and harassment here and elsewhere from their IPs being reported to them); otherwise just a small-town communications cooperative which can't really gain much more WP:N just because of how they're organized. Nathannah • 📮 22:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did manage to find this article [1] which compares Daktel broadband speeds with its competitors, however this is hardly in-depth coverage. Everything else I have found are local news articles with little scope or circulation outside of North Dakota. I can't see there being enough sources that would meet the GNG here.Dfadden (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

O'Don's

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

Article about a television series, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, television shows are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to pass certain defined notability criteria -- noteworthy awards, significant WP:GNG-worthy coverage about them, and on and so forth.
But two of the three footnotes here are IMDb and a Facebook post, which are not support for notability at all -- and while the third footnote is a real piece of GNG-worthy media coverage, it just represents local coverage in the area where the series was filmed, and thus isn't enough to singlehandedly vault this over GNG all by itself, while even a Google News search only found one other GNG-worthy (though still local) source about it.
The series, incidentally, aired on a cable television community channel -- the Canadian equivalent of public access television -- so it can't be extended a presumption of notability in the absence of adequate sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Agree completely with Bearcat, fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV «ΤΞΔ» - Please mention me when you reply to me or I wont see it! (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can only find one source on the show, which is already in the article. The source itself is not enough for the subject to pass WP:GNG. jolielover♥talk 08:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara M. Allen (journalist)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Barbara M. Allen (journalist) (2nd nomination)

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

A7 Dyljm (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A7 is a speedy deletion criterion; it normally isn't an AfD rationale. I have no opinion on that or anything else; I do, however, want to note this was previously part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Klein Weidman, a failed bundled nomination. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And A7 wouldn't apply anyhow; the article makes credible assertions of importance. With only eight edits to date, the nom ought to withdraw this until they have a much firmer grasp of WP:Deletion policy, and be able to set out a proper AfD nomination. Ravenswing 05:19, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly not an A7. A fairly cursory search on Newspapers.com also turned up multiple pieces of SIGCOV: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. MCE89 (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Agree this is not an A7, and there are multiple articles in WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV. These are mostly in Lancaster area newspapers which is why I'm !voting weak keep, but the coverage of the subject is sustained over time with multiple authors and publications. Nnev66 (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see what's wrong with this article, but for a few easily fixed issues. Bearian (talk) 07:38, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rationale for this AFD is incorrect. This does not pertain to A7. The topic is significant and satisfies the criteria for notability. Raj Shri21 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes GNG from sources showing in the footnotes plus bonus examples of coverage from MCE89. Carrite (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Multiple independent newspaper pieces over many years, together with coverage of her nationally broadcast PBS series, provide the significant, reliable secondary sourcing needed to meet WP:GNG. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the above comments. Surayeproject3 (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scrubs season 10

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

Nothing to report; not confirmed to be in principal photography (the standard for films, per WP:NFILM). Contested PROD. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is NOT a film, and does not need to meet the requirements of WP:NFILM, which is why I removed the PROD. Invalid rationale. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:TVSERIES says "In most cases, a television series or season is not eligible for an article until it has been confirmed by reliable sources to have started filming".
News of the revival has been covered in RS, but that doesn't meet WP:TVSERIES. — Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: It should be noted that WP:TVSERIES is an essay, not a policy or guideline. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:01, 26 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:30, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marianela Pereyra

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

Time to put this up. Likely paid for during development with possilikely sock edits. Person is not notable; there were a few TV appearances a decade ago but nothing of substance. Most of the article is unverified trivia or resume info. The most recent thing? Look down this silly "news" page and you'll find she is a "Resident Beach Expert", famous in Azerbaijan. Drmies (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess she hosted "Poker after Dark" [7], a Fox News story about how she was robbed; other than confirming the hosting duties, not helping notability. I think this is about the same person [8], appears to be fluff piece saying how she likes the beach. Even the .az source mentioned in the comment above doesn't really show notability. I don't see enough coverage to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, Sports, Austria, Argentina, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:55, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I did a WP:BEFORE search but didn’t find much beyond routine coverage. The subject fails to meet the criteria of WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nominator's rationale, the subject fails to meet the standards of GNG.. Raj Shri21 (talk) 11:28, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourcing is confined to routine primary or promotional material (e.g., a HuffPost contributor profile, ESPN press release, WPT post) and lacks the significant independent, reliable coverage required by WP:GNG, so the subject is not shown to be notable. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 01:11, 28 July 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.

GNN Roxas

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

BEFORE search brings up only wikipedia mirrors, website is expired. There's no claim to notability in the article. I don't know why a defunct TV station would be notable but this is not it. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 15:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Organizations, and Philippines. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 15:04, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – While the article has been around for a while, it's still lacking in key areas. It has no sections, very little context, and no sources to establish notability. The subject doesn't appear to meet the WP:GNG, and the current state of the article makes it hard to verify its significance. Cleanup alone may not be enough to justify keeping it. AdobongPogi ^{masarap 🍛} 15:49, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references found in GNews, GBooks and GSearch --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:08, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much evidence available from various searches that could help establish its notability. AstrooKai (Talk) 15:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per lack of WP:SIGCOV as noted by the above comments. Surayeproject3 (talk) 11:47, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Águeda (TV series)

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

No signs of notability whatsoever, seems to have been an unsuccessful series that only ran in one part of Mexico. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to flag some issues with the nomination rationale while admitting I don't know where to look for sourcing on a Mexican novela of this age; I found some namecheck references in news articles but nothing substantial. Unlike television series in other parts of the world, telenovelas have a shelf life. Even successful ones run for a determined, limited period. And Telesistema Mexicano was a national broadcaster, so while there might have been a lack of consistent networking at this time, this is not some local or regional operation. (The fact that pre-1972 material is listed under "Televisa" is a major anachronism...) There are a lot of early novelas in this stub condition that really need a specialist who knows the topic area in this vintage to write about them. I see why this went to AfD, but I can't fathom a telenovela from the dominant commercial broadcaster not being notable based on what I know about Mexican television. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Caridad Bravo Adams#Telenovelas but given the notability of the cast, a Keep would not be shocking. (just added 3 sources, 2 for verification)- Eva Ux 11:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there any more support for Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Brunell

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

This Los Angeles–based reporter's been around a few different news outlets, but there's no significant coverage of her (that isn't a podcast). All her Emmy awards are regional, and it's been the consensus that national awards are the only ones that confer notability. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and California. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 18:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poland and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Emmy nom, Emmy won as part of the team, not very strong for a stand-alone article... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not find sources about her that are independent and significant - nearly everything is listing her name as the reporter on a story, and that's her job. The "awards" are not significant. The TV award that she won listed 10 pages of "winners" and the ones for which she was nominated are worse. Her TV station did win for reporting, but she is not specifically mentioned. She's actually more likely to achieve notability through her bitcoin involvement, so maybe keep an eye on that. Lamona (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Gadget Show series 18

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

Completely unsourced, and no other series of this TV show has its own article. Day Creature (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not !voting at this point, but I will note that much of the material is a summary of episodes, and per WP:PLOTREF doesn't need a reference stated, as the episodes are presumed to be the source. I will also note that the page had references when it was created (although pulling one of those references out of the archive suggests we may have WP:COPYVIO problems). The references were removed in 2023 by an IP editor who was apparently unaware of how to deal with dead links. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No other series of this program have dedicated article, so it's a question of should they all have their own articles or should this one be deleted. I would tend towards deletion as it's not routine to make individual pages for a shows series, and Wikipedia isn't a directory either. GeekBurst (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A newspapers.com search for the UK is not pulling up any significant coverage for this particular season, at least not while it was on. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aapa Shameem

AfDs for this article:

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

Closed as no consensus last month. Original rationale - "YouTube series that fails notability guidelines. Sourcing is unreliable or social media links. Twice decliend at AfC and an attempted move back to draftspace as an WP:ATD was obejcted to by creator." Recently discovered that one of !keep votes is a SOCK, leaving the creator Keep vote and a WP:VW vote for keep. Attempted to redirect yesterday and was told to take it back to AfD so here we are. CNMall41 (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
pinging non-Sock voters @Reshmaaaa:, @Rahmatula786:, @Behappyyar:. Also note the many disruption attempts to close the previous discussion early, leaving to protection of the discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Aapa Shameem meets the criteria for notability as defined by WP:GNG and WP:NENT. The series has received WP:SIGCOV, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources:

- DAWN has published at least two critical columns analyzing the show themes, characters, and broadcast platform, not merely mentioning it.

- Independent Urdu, a variant of The Independent, ran an analytical feature article titled (translated to English) "Aapa Shameem: Good for few and Bad for the others" which covers the show in depth.

- South Asia Magazine, a regional magazine provided full plot, cast, and broadcast details, showing editorial depth.

- Additional coverge from The Nation, Samaa TV, The Express Tribune, and BizAsiaLive (UK) adds independent recognition and visibility.

These outlets meet the standards of WP:RS and are unaffiliated with the subject. Claims that the show is a “YouTube series” are demonstrably false – it aired on a national broadcast network, as confirmed by DAWN.

Also, no references in the article rely on social media or user-generated platforms. The current nomination hinges largely on a procedural point (sock vote), not a new substantive challenge to the article's notability. In line with WP:NOTABILITY and WP:ATD, this article deserves to remain in the mainspace. The table below demonstrates the show meets WP:GNG and WP:NENT via coverage in reliable, independent, and in-depth sources which go beyond trivial mentions and fulfill notability criteria per WP:GNG and WP:NENT.

Source	Type	Coverage	Independence	Reliability	Summary of Content
DAWN – The Tube Column	National newspaper	In-depth analysis	Independent of subject	High	Discusses broadcast details, themes of domestic power dynamics, and show's placement on national TV; not a passing mention.
Independent Urdu	Reputable news site (localized version of The Independent)	Thematic critique	Independent	High	Critical column titled “Aapa Shameem: Good for Few and Bad for the Others” – explores polarizing viewer reactions and social commentary.
SouthAsia Magazine	Regional print & digital magazine	Feature article	Independent	High	Offers comprehensive plot summary, cast information, and significance of the series in Pakistani pop culture.
The Nation	National newspaper	Mention with context	Independent	High	Cites the series in the context of TV viewership and debut performances.
The Express Tribune	English-language national daily (partnered with The New York Times)	Trends coverage	Independent	High	Analyzes how the show gained attraction via YouTube uploads by the official broadcaster.
Samaa TV	Private national broadcaster	Coverage of lead actress's debut	Independent	Medium–High	Highlights the debuut of lead actor Zoha Tauqeer and the show's role in launching her career.
BizAsiaLive (UK)	British entertainment/media site	Ratings and visibility	Independent	Medium	Reports on South Asian TV shows’ international performance and reception in UK-based diaspora.

Also as claimed, I'm in no hurry to close the discussion. If that would have been the casez why would I confidently ask the nominator to take it to WP:AfD again. Reshmaaaa (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article requires improvement but there is no concern over the notability of the subject. Zakaria ښه راغلاست (talk) 23:01, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VAGUEWAVE. There is a concern over notability which is why it is here. It would be like saying there are no concerns for socking (which there are). What "improvements" would you recommend it needs and on what basis are you claiming this is notable?--CNMall41 (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of Aapa Shameem has already been addressed with multiple independent, reliable, and non-trivial sources—including DAWN, Independent Urdu, and SouthAsia Magazine—clearly satisfying WP:GNG and WP:NENT.

Zakaria1978’s mention of "improvement" likely refers to editorial quality (tone, structure, citations), which is valid but not a deletion rationale per WP:ATD#IMPROVE and WP:CLEANUP. When notability is met, issues like formatting should be fixed, not used to justify removal.

Also, concerns about socking don’t negate the independent merits of the sources or the article’s eligibility. The focus here should remain on content, not conduct.Reshmaaaa (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping they can clarify their own statements as opposed to you and I assuming what they meant.--CNMall41 (talk) 06:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vorona (TV series)

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

No compliance with the criteria of significance. No reviews or awards.--Тихонова Пустынь (talk) 08:56, 17 July 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 July 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The series meets WP:GNG as it has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, including The Hollywood Reporter and Komsomolskaya Pravda. The director Todorovsky and lead actors, including Boyarskaya, Beliy, are notable figures with substantial media presence (see WP:ENT). The series aired on national television, adding to its cultural significance. Beliy is also well known for being against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The subject clearly meets inclusion criteria.

Er nesto (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 12:55, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sati Tulasi (1959 film)

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

It appears to lack significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that demonstrate its notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. WP:BEFORE has not revealed adequate coverage to establish notability. CivicInk (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Television, Theatre, and India. CivicInk (talk) 19:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added references and more content -bssasidhar- >Talk Page 19:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no plot, no info about the release; just a big fat nonsense table listing songs and poems. It would be better to delete the article, and if the film is notable, someone else can start from scratch someday, armed with WP:Reliable sources, and write something that makes sense. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:07, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Plot and release date have been added. -bssasidhar- >Talk Page 11:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you did not add a source for the release date. There should be sections for the development and production of the film, its promotion and release -- was it played at Festivals? Did it have theatrical release, direct-to-video, or what? You need to add sources for all of this. What did the critical reviews say? What was the film's budget and total gross revenue? If there are no independent reviews and sources, then this film is not notable. This is still just a rambling stub. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Directing debut of a prominent film director (see https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/2012/Jan/12/veteran-film-director-passes-away-329441.html). Added a source to the page about the director for the theatrical release (Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema p. 642; also see p. 549.) It is hard to believe that someone could ask if a 1959 film could have had a direct-to-video release but maybe that was a joke. The cast is also fairly notable. Please see WP:NFIC which states "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career. An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." Seems to be the case. But if the cast and plot can be redirected and merged into the article about the director, feel free. Anyway, deletion does not seem necessary.- Eva Ux 22:54, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:26, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm seeing some search results for an alternate spelling Sathi Tulasi, but still no sources showing notability. No (inserted - good sources) ~~sources~~ for the Telugu Wikipedia article [9] either. And there appear to be two films with this name. One is dated 1936. Also poorly sourced over there. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother (Serbian TV series) season 1

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

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing found to support notability. A redirect was reversed. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:58, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that the contested redirect target was Big Brother (Serbian TV series).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With only a single tabloid reference and no significant independent coverage, the season fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSEASON; its routine details can be folded into the main series article. Aeon Sentinel (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:51, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lola & Virginia

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

Fails GNG. I tried looking up several variations of Lola & Virginia (Lola and Virginia, Lola y Virginia, Lola e Virginia, Lola eta Virginia) and could only find fan sites and other sources that don't confer reliability. Perhaps someone familiar with Basque- and Spanish-language sources can take a look? 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 10:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Spain. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 10:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Common Sense Media has a review: [10]. --Mika1h (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find PR items about it streaming on Hulu in the USA, nothing else. I don't see enough for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FR and ES wiki articles only use primary sourcing, so no help there either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: analyzed here in the journal Revista Internacional de Comunicación y Desarrollo published by the University of Santiago de Compostela. Geschichte (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Geschichte, some additional coverage here [11][12]--Asqueladd (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe series aired on Disney Channel Spain and had a full season, the article lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Much of the content is plot-heavy and unsourced, and the notability tag has been present for some time without resolution. Under WP:GNG and WP:TV, the show does not appear to meet the threshold for lasting encyclopedic relevance. Unless stronger sourcing is provided.--Unclethepoter (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Your opinion will not be weighted if you don't comment on those even summarily. Geschichte (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, I'll let the closing admin close this as keep unless some issues are found with that journal article @Geschichte mentioned. Good find, I would have never expected to find sources for this in academia. 🧙‍♀️ Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:57, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Auton (film series)

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

A film series for the Doctor Who franchise. I recently did research for the Autons, and while digging, I did a little bit of research on these films, but could find absolutely nothing on them. The only mentions were brief, and mentioned the films existed, but said nothing more. I can't find any dev info, let alone SIGCOV that would provide reception for the films. The only source from the article providing any commentary is a single book, with any other source being fanzines or Doctor Who Magazine, which is a PRIMARY source officially published for the Doctor Who franchise, and with BBV being tied to the BBC in production of these films, I doubt it passes a threshold of separation from the Magazine's usual advertisement. This article also suffers from WP:COATRACK, courtesy of all three being separate, non-notable subjects covered together to cobble together an article. I'd suggest a redirect to either BBV Productions where these films are listed, or Nestene Consciousness and Autons, where these films are also listed, as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Television. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I assume the nominator's intended alternative to deletion redirect suggestions are actually BBV Productions (not the BBV disambiguation page) or Nestene Consciousness and Autons (Nestene Consciousness and Auton does not exist, but is probably little more than a typo). No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wcquidditch oop, thank you for the catch. I've amended my nom statement's links for clarity. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:24, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think coatrack applies as the films are obviously connected on the same subject by the same producers and the same distributors. Regarding the book source for critical analysis "Downtime - The Lost Years of Doctor Who" by Dylan Rees it would be considered more reliable if it has been used in scholarly sources ? imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306 I don't deny the Downtime source, but the fact it's quite literally the only reliable piece of SIGCOV is the biggest problem. An article relying basically exclusively on one source is a huge issue; I've found substantially more content comparatively on other BBV films, these ones definitely seem to be the outlier in terms of actual SIGCOV that exists. If there's any more out there I missed I'd be happy to see it though. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:00, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 07:38, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clancy O'Connor

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Credits are far too skimpy. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, Kansas, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:50, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable actor has participated in several television series 200.46.55.180 (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 02:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. Appearing in single episodes (two in one series) does not make him notable. He would need to play at least a recurring character for that. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make New Friends but Keep Discord

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

Notability is not demonstrated. Ponyville Confidential does not appear to go into depth on the episode (judging from the preview triangulation I was able to do with Google Books), Unleash the Fanboy does not appear to be a reliable site or to indicate notability; it's a defunct "WOW!POP!WTF!"-type blog. WhatCulture is definitely not reliable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unleash the Fanboy had an editorial board, so it was not just a blog. I'm not sure what there is to gain from deleting an article for an episode of a notable show. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:25, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I searched their website for evidence of an editorial board and couldn't find anything; could you kindly link to that? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is evidence of a staff list here from the Wayback machine from 2013: [13], though that is the latest the web archive will go. From looking at other articles from Unleash the Fanboy at the time, there is evidence of an expanded staff list by 2015 (which is when the episode aired) but the Wayback machine did not capture it. I also expanded Connelly's coverage from her book.

As for WhatCulture, I understand that it is listed as "generally unreliable" under WP:WHATCULTURE, as the concern is that contributors "do not need to have any relevant experience or hold any particular qualifications" and editors note a poor record of fact checking, so that the facts written in an article is unverifiable. But this is an episode of a children's television show we're talking about. Every single statement in the review is verifiable because anyone can watch the episode and confirm what the author is saying. If the subject of the article was a living person then per WP:BLP of course we shouldn't use a generally unreliable source, but I don't agree with not being able to use a single article from a source because it was found to be generally unreliable, especially when the subject in question is not contentious at all. If a source is generally unreliable, why even use the word generally and why not just call it unreliable in that case? GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 21:55, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the WhatCulture piece contains falsehoods is not in question; it’s just a poor source that cannot be used to establish the notability of a topic. A press release for the episode would have the same problem. As for Unleash the Fanboy, that staff list does not inspire any confidence in the weight of the website in establishing topic notability—it seems to just be some buddies who put a website together. They’re not journalists. I believe that if a TV episode received no more than a few sentences in a book, plus two reviews in poor sources, and no coverage more convincing than that, then it’s not notable. I understand we disagree; others will weigh in. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:27, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many notable subjects that did not receive much media coverage (Example? Some mathematicians with many widely cited papers don't meet GNG). They are not notable by WP:GNG, but by just good sense they are notable (and this show is very notable). Everything here is true, so why delete it? It's a clear case of WP:IGNORE. The rules were not made to delete articles like this one. MathKeduor7 (talk) 20:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give as example an article I've created: Treatise on Radioactivity. Clearly notable, but doesn't meet GNG. MathKeduor7 (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing that no subject should be deleted on the grounds of non-notability—or that notability guidelines are irrelevant to subject notability. You can argue that at Wikipedia Talk:Notability, but AfD discussions refer to the notability policy.

That mathematicians have their own SNG (WP:ACADEMIC) does not imply that episodes of My Little Pony don’t need to meet any notability guideline to be considered notable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I am arguing specifically for these types of articles. MathKeduor7 (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote what by best friend said: "Rules are not created ex nihilo, "arbitrarily" (at least they shouldn't be). They are created to impartially regulate conduct in similar situations, based on known past cases and attempting to anticipate possible future cases. As new cases become known that represent exceptions to the rule and should be analyzed differently, the rule needs to be constantly refined to take these situations into account and remain true to its original purpose, rather than becoming an instrument of tyranny and oppression." MathKeduor7 (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read about Martin Luther King Jr. and unfair rules. MathKeduor7 (talk) 02:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need criteria similar to WP:BKCRIT for notable show episodes other than GNG, until then this should be speedy keep (maybe) I think. MathKeduor7 (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to speedy keep an article because there isn't a guideline supporting its notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic season 5#ep98. I like to think I'm more lenient when it comes to keeping episode articles – typically, I look for just two good sources about the specific episode. Unfortunately, I don't see that. Using the reference numbers from this link:
- Ref 1 is a licensed guidebook, so it's not independent coverage.
- Ref 2 is routine coverage (most primetime shows get daily Nielsen ratings), so it's not significant.
- Refs 3-5 are hard to verify, but from a Google Books search, it appears that all mentions are brief and trivial. (Searching "Make New Friends but Keep Discord" returns exactly 3 hits corresponding to the 3 references here. The book has been scoured for any mention of the episode to include, even when the context is about something else, such as ref 5 detailing a character instead of this episode. That's not how significant coverage works.)
- Ref 6 is from a blog that has a giant "Write for Us" button at the top; to me, it's clearly a fan site, not a professional, reliable source. The generic about us page and the social-media–like staff pages support this (I'm skeptical of any site that gives its editors achievement badges).
- Ref 7 is more churnalism; like with 6, if anyone can write for them (which is why it's considered unreliable), it's more of a fan site than anything.

I'm not seeing any good sources for this article. There is a clear redirect target, so deletion is a step too far, but there's no good reason to keep this. And for those who think TV episodes should have their own notability guideline, you should know that many WP:TV members have pushed for a stricter guideline here – so sticking to GNG is probably a better route. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good redirect target. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:32, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic season 5#ep98 per RunningTiger123. Zzz plant (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

Television proposed deletions

CIRE-TV (via WP:PROD on 14 May 2025)
CFSO-TV (via WP:PROD on 14 May 2025)
Booby and Booba (via WP:PROD on 8 May 2025)
Objetos perdidos (via WP:PROD on 8 May 2025)