THC Science

WP:DELSORT/TV

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

List of fictional television stations

AfDs for this article:

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

Almost entirely unsourced. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a directory. This is better suited to Fandom and does not belong on Wikipedia. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Query, if it had the paltry number of refs that List of fictional radio stations had, would that be enough? Abductive (reasoning) 23:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly that article is a decent candidate for a deletion discussion as well. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part Query & part Keep — What's the difference between the lists of fictional media outlets (TV & radio stations & TV networks) and the lists of real media outlets (TV & radio stations & TV networks)? Both are, as you claim indiscriminate collections of information, as well as directories. Plus, how is the information unsourced when it's fairly easy to find references to the mentioned fictional media outlets in the stated summaries for the various movies/TV shows/books they're featured in? ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because such plot summaries do not establish WP:LISTN. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, what about my first query? How are the lists of fictional media outlets any different than the lists of real media outlets? ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact fictional media elements don't have overarching notability. Real world stations have an actual real world impact, but these fictional stations have no indication of notability as a fictional element. It's indiscriminate in its current state because there's no real clear notability established of any kind. I go into this a bit further in my vote down below, but overall Pppery's point is this: plot summary of random fictional aspects does not establish notability. It needs sourcing to get to that point, or needs some valid rationale that this list simply doesn't have. In its current state, this list has nothing proving why it needs to exist and why this subject is actually notable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nominator suggests that no amount of references will dissuade them from trying to delete lists that readers seems to like, based on a misunderstanding of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This list is quite discriminating; it lists fictional television stations on shows that have Wikipedia articles. Moreover, the alternative is a bunch of redirects from individual fictional call letters or whatever to their shows, which would be fine except some are the same. So then what? Create little disambig pages for those? Abductive (reasoning) 02:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Readers liking a list is not grounds to keep if it does not meet Wikipedia standards. Notability is not inherited from these fictional stations' original media, and thus it very much is indiscriminate, because this is discussing these stations separately from the parent topic, not in conjunction with a parent topic. Even then, there is no inclusion criteria that determines what makes this grouping notable, and no sourcing nor any rationale proving notability. Bar a few exceptions, most of these probably don't need a DISAMBIG, since I doubt most of these are actually notable aspects discussed at their parent articles from a glance at a lot of these subjects. There's nothing really here justifying this list's existence. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what's next? Go after List of fictional espionage organizations because you feel S.P.E.C.T.R.E. and its ilk are indiscriminate? Abductive (reasoning) 03:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly that. That article itself is bloated with fancruft and needs a major prune. I think it can survive refocused as a navigational list with only entries with standalone articles, rather than being deleted, but there isn't enough content to support that kind of list here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing against the current state of these lists, and about the fact that they are about fictional works, and saying that the solution is deletion. There is no possible end to this but to delete all lists involving fiction on Wikipedia. I hope you can see that. Abductive (reasoning) 05:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some lists of fictional topics actually have significant coverage in reliable sources that discuss them as a group or set, thus fulfilling the requirements of WP:LISTN. Others are made up of a number of notable examples that link to dedicated articles on them, thus making them valid navigational lists. This particular list meets neither of those requirements. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument to make in an AFD, but that is the simple explanation as to why it is absolutely not a case of having to keep all or delete all list articles. Rorshacma (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I feel the other !Keep votes are failing to understand that this is indiscriminate unless sourcing can be properly demonstrated. Per Pppery, the difference between a list of fictional and real outlets is that real outlets are actually significant to the real world, and have proper articles in a good chunk of cases. The list meets LISTN because there are actually articles on these subjects. In this list, nothing is proving that such a list is notable. There's no notable parent topic, and a brief skim yields very few of these fictional stations, if any at all, having articles. This is very much INDISCRIMINATE unless sourcing can be found proving fictional radio stations are notable, and even if that is the case, the article needs a whole TNT to meet quality standards. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"fictional radio station" has 551 Google books results. Abductive (reasoning) 03:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Pokelego999 - There are no sources present in the list that would allow this to pass WP:LISTN, nor have I found any in searches. Additionally, it does not serve as a useful navigational list as so few of the entries actually link to valid articles. As stated in the nom, this list is a failure of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rorshacma (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign Robot Wars robots

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

Doesn't meet WP:NLIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholly unsourced and not a defining characteristic and oddly titled, as if those 'dirty foreigner robots' should be separated from those 'fine British robotfolk'. Nate • (chatter) 22:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of domestic football league broadcast deals by country

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

I find this list reeks of WP:OR, although it's sourced, I don't consider this content worthy for wikipedia. I am not sure this should qualify under WP:NLIST, wikipedia is not Forbes. Govvy (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NLIST and seems to be pure WP:LISTCRUFT. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is not Encyclopedic in nature. We could just have endless lists of anything as long as there are sources if we didn't have notability guidelines. Not notable. Chris1834 Talk 18:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It's a deja vu from this? Svartner (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many of these leagues have their own rights articles and sections, and this is a completely unhelpful list beyond domestic broadcasters. It also seems abandoned going by the mentions of companies such as ViacomCBS that have long changed their names. Nate • (chatter) 22:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Evening Concert

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

Simply fails WP:NFILM. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Entertainment, and Azerbaijan. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mukhtar Dadashov: (director). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willy & Scratch

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

Simply fails WP:NFILM. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Entertainment, and United States of America. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a book called "The International Film Index, 1895-1990: Film titles" and on page 929 there is this "Willy & Scratch" film. PrestigiousLynx4378 (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: added 3 sources; all in all, coverage seems sufficient for a standalone page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayeye Penhan

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

Fails WP:NFILM in short. No critical reception whatsoever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Entertainment, and Iran. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is about an Iranian film that was recorded in Iran according to the sources available in the article. If the article is lacking in content, it is likely that the user who created it did not have sufficient information and was unable to provide further edits. As you may have noticed, a 'stub' template has been added at the end of the article, indicating that editors are encouraged to help expand the article by adding more information. According to this procedure, the article needs more time to be completed. However, you have placed a deletion template on this article, which goes against the rules of English Wikipedia." 5.233.174.226 (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have no decent sourcing to start with, adding a stub template doesn't really help. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No mentions in RS other than what's given; not seeing notability for this short film. I don't find any sourcing either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A statement is made that is not logical. You say there are no sources, so what are the sources listed in the references section for? This has been officially announced as a certain type of film and has been screened as a cinematic movie in Iran and registered on IMDb. You shouldn't compare this article, which pertains to Iran, with an article related to the United States, because it was created by an editor who has limited knowledge about Iranian cinema, and this will be corrected over time with the help of other editors. Unfortunately, you made a hasty decision to delete this article, which is not logical and violates Wikipedia's rules. This article is still new and was created just a month ago, and a stub template has been added to allow editors to contribute, with credible sources also cited. 5.233.174.226 (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article, with its completed information, should remain on English Wikipedia and not be deleted, so that it can be improved and matured by editors.

Thank you. 5.233.230.102 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programmes broadcast by Pogo

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Sources are unreliable or do not talk about the programming as a whole. Many of the sources are primary cited to the channel itself. There is currently only eight active programs which can be merged into the main Pogo (TV channel). In fact, those programs don't even appear to be original programming so they originate with another network. As far as the argument that the list serves a purpose, there is already a category for its original programming which serves such purpose, especially since the shows listed here are mainly originating from other networks. CNMall41 (talk) 05:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A standard WP:SPLITLIST in the Category:Lists of television series by network. Sourcing can be improved.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dhamaal (TV channel)

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

Sources are churnalism and based on a press release, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, or otherwise unreliable. WP:BEFORE found nothing that would meet WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Hindi_television_channels#General_entertainment: (listed there) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Illinois' On-Line Broadcast Museum

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

Fails WP:GNG; written like an advertisement. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Museums and libraries, and Illinois. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PlusTV

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

The page doesn't cite any source, doesn't seem neutral enough, and its notability is uncertain. Cornflake000^[T]/_[C] 20:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cornflake000^[T]/_[C] 20:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DNA Oyj -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with DNA Oyj. Ednabrenze (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Purcell

AfDs for this article:

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

The article cites two sources, both of them are unreliable. It is solely comprised of a plot summary with no reception. Nothing else was found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peyton Place (TV series)#Characters, per WP:ATD. BD2412 T 16:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peyton Place (TV series)#Characters - Since the character is already on the character list and and Redirects are cheap, I suppose this could work as a valid WP:ATD. But given that I can find no sources at all that actually devote any real kind of coverage to the character, and the character apparently only appeared in six episodes of a 514 episode series, I honestly have doubts that the character has even the barest amount of notability to even be listed on the series character list. Rorshacma (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appeared in only 6 out of 514 episodes (per previous AFD) in a 1960s TV series, redlinked actress, too non-notable even for a redirect. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. No significant coverage. Not clear that this would even belong on a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE list. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a Bicycle

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

Simply fails WP:NFILM. Nothing to suggest notability. No critical reception from reliable sources whatsoever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and France. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtually unknown in France, let alone anywhere else. Athel cb (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merzak_Allouache#Selected_filmography: Notable cast, a few reliable websites in French allow verification and contain a rating, so opposed to deletion and redirecting to director is a good altenative to deletion. Not opposed to keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Cycling. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Algeria. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Williams (actor)

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

I can't see that this has WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources or that they meet WP:NACTOR. The article itself lists roles in multiple TV series and TV movies, however I can't see reliable sourcing to support the claims. The only independent reliable source which has SIGCOV I could find in an WP:BEFORE was this. TarnishedPath^talk 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Virginia. TarnishedPath^talk 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Not enough coverage to write a verifiable article and certainly not enough to establish notability. I can't find any significant coverage. The CBC article linked is about Tim Williams (actor), not this guy. C F A 💬 02:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Tag everything that is uncited as {{citation needed}} and tag everything that is cited to IMDb as {{better citation needed}}. BD2412 T 03:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft I support moving the article to draft where it can go incubated and sources added. Tesleemah 09:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources that could be added though? This person's notability has not been established in nearly a decade. I doubt something big is going to happen in the next six months before it is deleted. C F A 💬 14:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WSJX-LP

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

Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Kim

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

Reviewed during New Page Patrol. No evidence of wp:notability under sng or gng. Article is basic resume/cv type material. The references are either his employers, him, or brief mentions. Looking for GNG references, I took a closer look at number 2 (circa Aug 16, 2024) which is an interview of him and another person, and #14 which is a promo for an item on their website and content looks like a resume supplied by him North8000 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion at the creator's talk page, sorry if I wasn't clearer. I picked those two sources to take a closer look at because they were the best possibilities for being GNG sources. The creator assumed that I was criticizing them and deleted them. Suggest that they be restored.North8000 (talk) 14:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Television, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Pierre White Jr

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP. This person seems to only be notable for being the first man to be evicted on any UK series of Big Brother. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 14:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not voting yet, but I did consider redirecting it myself after its failed DYK nomination (I created the article and it was originally much longer). I would say there's more than enough WP:SUSTAINED coverage of him, though I wonder if WP:NPF applies. Pinging @UndercoverClassicist, RoySmith, Vaticidalprophet, Theleekycauldron, AirshipJungleman29, and Freedom4U: for their input.--Laun chballer 15:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least on the current sources provided, there's a question mark over WP:NOTNEWS for me -- lots of sources, but all ephemeral tabloid stuff rather than any serious interest in the person himself. I suppose there's an argument that the sheer volume of such coverage implies that someone is interested in him, but I'd need convincing at the moment that those interested people include enough sources that would clear WP:RS (and perhaps WP:NINHERITED to boot). At the moment, I don't think I have a vote either way, but that may change as this discussion develops. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll just quote myself from the DYK nomination because I think it applies just as well here as it did there: I'm not a fan of these types of articles. I don't know if I can justify this on any policy grounds, but IAR yuck. RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I've just taken the time to read the entire article. It's worse than my initial impression. Either of WP:CRIME or WP:BLP would work for a policy-based justification. Please make this go away. RoySmith (talk) 20:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Crime, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage seems rather unencyclopedic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rajinikanth Vellalacheruvu

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

Article previously deleted for unambiguous promotion, recreated as draft and unilaterally moved to mainspace. Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NJOURNALIST. Available sources are almost exclusively WP:PRIMARY or WP:YOUTUBE links (or both). The handful of other sources are limited to tabloid coverage excluded under WP:SBST and questionable coverage under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Recommending a redirect to TV9 Telugu as an AtD but given this history of this page (BLAR immediately reverted) we will need an AfD verdict to make it stick. OK with outright deletion as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TV9 Telugu - Nothing I'm finding is about him; it's just reports and interviews he participated in. (string:"rajinikanth vellalacheruvu") —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Television, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There seems to be no independent source with significant coverage among the 32 sources cited in the article. Some are self-published, i.e. from TV9, YouTube videos and interviews hosted or anchored by the subject. There is also some coverage of his tweets, but nothing substantial about his work as a journalist in reliable and published third-party sources. The article is poorly written, so it's not worth saving its page history as a redirect. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sir

He is very noted Journalist in Telugu states, He is know for his interviews with Andhra Pradesh and Telangana state Chief ministers and opposition leaders. He has done interview of Prime Minister of India , Shri Narendra Modi before 2024 General Elections. It worth to keep his Wikipedia page. Please reconsider your decsion 171.76.87.55 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conducting interviews is not evidence of notability; notability is not WP:INHERITED from the subjects of an interview. There's no WP:SIGCOV of this individual. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews provide zero notability whether as subject or interviewer (connexion to subject). We are looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-the subject news/scholarly sources that discuss Vellalacheruvu at length, are written by identifiable authors, and subject to fact-checking and stringent editorial oversight. I haven't found anything of the sort. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WERI-LP

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

Subject does not have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Virginia. Let'srun (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet another remnant of the considerably looser inclusion standards of 2010. The apparent lack of any known programming information would certainly suggest the lack of any non-FCC coverage here, significant or not. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Stamper

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

She fails WP:BIO , WP:JOURNALIST and definitely WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Television, and England. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Did not find enough coverage in WP:RS, and does not meet any specific guidelines. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCHD-CA

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Wyoming. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another remnant of the much looser inclusion standards of 2006. A station that seems to have only operated for ~8 years at most with only national religious services is not going to get significant, if any, coverage. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KMAH-LP

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG due to a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Christianity, and Wyoming. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another remnant of the far looser inclusion standards of 2005, when being FCC-licensed was considered enough to be "notable" with largely little regard as to significant coverage or the potential of same. The parade of national services that are this station's only known programming—albeit without sourcing, anyway—does not exactly point to SIGCOV. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KKRR-LP

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

Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wyoming. Let'srun (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject lacks noble subject (KmTvFan me (talk to me 03:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 05:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another remnant of the much looser inclusion standards of 2006. The only known programming was a national religious network and a slate announcing that network had moved to a co-owned station — and all that without sourcing, as it has been tagged as unsourced since 2021. If there was any significant coverage here, there probablly should have been some by now. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of football leagues by media rights deals

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

This feels like a breach of WP:OR, I honestly don't see the encyclopaedic value for this article. Wikipedia is not Forbes. Govvy (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GiantSnowman. Please help me understand as this is one of my first article creation (and my first one with a deletion discussion). I created this article as "List of domestic football league broadcast deals by country", an article that has been in existence for 6 years, had similar content but solely focused on domestic rights and not international rights. What would make this older article notable and not this new one? Both have multiple seemingly reliable sources (AP, Reuters, CNN, ESPN, NYT etc). Thank you in advance for your help. Cgixn (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not finding any coverage of these deals as a group; fails WP:NLIST. Let'srun (talk) 20:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:NLIST as above. Prices are dynamic and change from season to season. Svartner (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Svartner. Could you guide me as to why "List of domestic football league broadcast deals by country" complies with WP:NLIST but not "List of football leagues by media rights deals"? Thanks for the help. Cgixn (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joseph2302, I wish to ask the same question as to the other reviewer. What makes "List of football leagues by media rights deals" fail these but not "List of domestic football league broadcast deals by country"? Thank you in advance. Cgixn (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NLIST; the topic of media rights deals is not notable, therefore the list is not notable. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie Jane

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG per these sources [1][2][3][4] which give fairly significant coverage to the subject. There are also other sources available that when combined further their notability for an article. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, source 8 above is a brief album review in Billboard (fine I guess), the rest are about the season of Big Brother and mention this person in relation to the others on the show. Not exactly significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the Big Brother season? Seems to have survived long enough on the show, but I'm not sure they're notable outside of that context. Doesn't seem to meet musical notability requirements either. The Billboard review is fine, but it's used for musical notability, then we go onto the TV show sources; you have to pick one sort of notability, you can't stack them. Being almost notable as a DJ and almost notable as a TV personality don't add up to an article here. I'm not fussed if this gets !deleted either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conestoga College Digital TV

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

Google News searching “Conestoga College Digital TV” yields no result. No independent significant coverage. Northern Moonlight 13:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Same editor submitted Draft:Conestoga College digital television but was declined for WP:NORG; they then created this article in main namespace the same day. Northern Moonlight 13:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northern Moonlight 13:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, Education, Internet, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Conestoga College: I draftified this as the CCDTV social profiles do not help with wp:NORG. Doesn’t seem there is other material. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kothha (TV series)

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

Only one source on the page. A WP:BEFORE search for ("Kotha" Bengali serial) has four hits on GNews and other search only shows WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Star_Jalsha#Current_broadcast -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Whole New Whirled

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

The entire content of this page is already written in Peacemaker season 1. Almost every section of "Production" talks about details that involve the entire season and not specifically the first episode of it. Even the "Critical reception" section talks about the first three episode and not of this episode individually. If we don't want to cancel this page, I think that we could easily merge some information (like the Critical reception) into Peacemaker season 1. But I don't think that this first episode is independently notable. Redjedi23 (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is met. Nom appears to miss specific commentary on the introduction of the bald eagle character, and commentary on multiple (3) episodes still addresses the topic directly and in detail, so GNG remains met. This appears to be a perfectly reasonable and policy-compliant episode page, appropriate for the pilot of a series. Jclemens (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The making of Eagly could be put in the season's page since the character appears throughout the entire season, it is not a pilot-specific detail. The commentary on the first three episode could be easily merged into the "Critical reception" section of Peacemaker season 1. That section has even a notice that asks the editor to expand it, so that commentary could even help that page. Redjedi23 (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could be != must be. In fact, could be != should be. You're making a valid editorial argument, but arguing that it should be enforced by deletion, when in fact this article meets the expectations for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a well-sourced page for an evidently notable subject. If the problem is that there's too much overlap with other pages, that's something that can be fixed by normal editing. Each episode of the series received coverage, and therefore they all have pages; it would be silly to delete the first episode just because it was released in conjunction with the second and third. Toughpigs (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the other two pages and the situation is even worse. A duplicate of the Critical reception section and nothing that couldn't be easily merged into Peacemaker season 1 :/ Redjedi23 (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seeing that all other S1 episodes have stand-alone articles that are (at least on a superficial level) properly sourced and encyclopedic, deletion feels completely wrong. If anything, a merge discussion (to reduce redundancy) could be started concerning all S1 episode articles. But that's at an editorial level, not a job for AFD. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop, Look, & Listen

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

Disputed draftification, Moved back to mainspace at once with no edits. This suggests that re-draftificatiin will serve no purpose. Fails WP:V, Fails WP:NTELEVISION. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect per nomination, appears to fail WP:NTELEVISION and WP:GNG. Searching online the only coverage I could find in reliable secondary sources was passing mentions: [5], [6], [7]. Wikishovel (talk) 12:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !Vote to Redirect, per Govvy and Lenticel. Wikishovel (talk) 07:47, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stop, Look and Listen disambiguation page for the term, there were a couple of things with this title. Including a long running UK TV add. Govvy (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG -- mikeblas (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stop, Look and Listen dab page as there are plausible targets listed there --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magandang Tanghali

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

Article about a television show, completely unsourced for the purposes of establishing that it would pass WP:TVSHOW. As at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stop, Look, & Listen (same creator), this was sandboxed in draftspace for lack of referencing and then almost immediately unsandboxed by the creator again without any effort to address the reasons why it got sandboxed in the first place. Obviously no prejudice against recreation if somebody can find proper reliable source coverage about it to establish that it would pass inclusion criteria, but television shows are not entitled to keep unsourced articles. Bearcat (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. Bearcat (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V and WP:TVSHOW. No or little point in draftfication. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, appears to fail WP:NTELEVISION and WP:GNG. Searching online, the only coverage I could find in reliable secondary sources was passing mentions: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Wikishovel (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cue TV

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

Appears to fail general notability requirements. I also can't find any media sources. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southern_Institute_of_Technology#Campuses: (othe possibler targets exist) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Channel North Television

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

No sources. Fails WP:N. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of free-to-air channels in New Zealand (though it is not mentioned there). There's this article but nothing outside of that. Fails GNG. C F A 💬 15:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: or redirect to the list in see also (as CFA suggests). Sources (one mentioned by CFA): https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/northland-tv-station-channel-north-revived/Y5COCFVXAAK7HQJEB25CVY5X3A/#google_vignette ; https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/51604/regional-tv-channel-'facing-certain-death' for example -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buang Ruk Kamathep

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

Unreferenced cross-wiki spam. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very Filmy

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wait, but why you actually said it passes WP:GNG earlier? And you removed the notability tags twice when I added them. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opinions change. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Donaldd23, Sure, I just wanted to seek some clarification. Better late than never. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sources covering production, controversy and critical appraisal are in my opinion enough for this to be retained. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Momina Duraid: I’d suggest we redirect this, if not deleted, because it doesn’t meet GNG. Fwiw, it was created by LOUTSOCK (Special:Contributions/154.80.67.71) and later expanded by Nauman335, our acclaimed UPE sock master. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Podcats

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and France. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ian_Parovel#Filmography: not opposed to keep (broadcast on major French networks during years, some sources but no time to improve it) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who robots

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

WP:OR without independent sources or any indication of notability. There isn't anything other than a WP:DIRECTORY of Doctor Who episodes that might feature a robot. Wikipedia doesn't support repeated WP:SYNTH lists where editors research patterns across television episodes. Editors should fix the main character list instead of expanding their flaws across multiple faulty lists. Jontesta (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Deleting a well-established article that has been refined and improved by numerous contributors, and which many users find valuable, undermines the collective effort and the utility it provides.

2. Wikipedia's scope has expanded, allowing for more inclusive content. Articles that were deleted a decade ago due to non-notability are now encouraged and considered relevant.

3. While source citations were less emphasized when I initially created the article, contributors have since verified and corrected any inaccuracies, ensuring the article's reliability. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well established articles don't exactly get a free pass from discussions about their quality and issues they may have on the website. They need to be verifiable and notable to continue to exist on the website.
While true, that is primarily due to new sources being discovered allowing for more revivals on articles where that sourcing did not exist at the time, not due to any laxing of restrictions.
There are only four citations on the article, and many entries are unsourced and are only a redirect to another topic they're a part of. Even if this is kept, it needs a major overhaul to verify its contents as a whole.

Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment are there any articles on robotic characters in the various books discussing Doctor Who's science? I recall seeing at least one or two, but searching for them proves difficult given that most searches for "Doctor Who robot" tends to just pull results from the episode Robot (Doctor Who). If nothing else can be found I'd suggest a partial merge to list of List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, as several of these characters (Such as Autons, Yeti, and Quarks) do have associations with several entries currently on the list, with some of the robots that are considered species potentially being included in that list as well (Such as the Roboforms, Sandminer Robots, Mechonoids, for example). Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think merging the major robots to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens is a good idea. Toughpigs (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively, per Toughpigs. Some of these have WP:TRIVIALCOVERAGE, which fails WP:LISTN as such a narrow spinoff of characters. If we're looking for one list to cover these characters, List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens seems like it's constructed in a neutral way that's consistent with the sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens. Much better than keeping or deletion. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a fan wiki and I don't see any mergeable content within the article. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have no objection if specific, sourced entries for specific robots were added to the List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, but given that this list consists of entries that are either nothing but links to episodes or unsourced material, I don't think using this as a basis for a Merge would be appropriate for that. Rorshacma (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Services Public Relations media productions

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Mention insignificant work. WP:NOT DIRECTORY — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Film, Television, Video games, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it's just raw list and not much explanations about the production company. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator and previous voter. The article has no encyclopedic context or explanatory value for the interested reader. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This is a part of ISPR's main page. Just like many other pages have separate list pages. For example, Tom Hanks has a separate list page called List of Tom Hanks performances and credits. Another huge list is List of songs recorded by Lata Mangeshkar. Every production house has a separate list for their work like List of Paramount Pictures films (2010–2019). So, strongly KEEP.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ameen Akbar. Muneebll (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Muneebll, OK but Ameen presented an argument that wasn't based on policy. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ameen's argument has a substance. We do have separate articles to avoid the article getting too long. If we delete this article, all this information has to be added back in the main article which will make it lengthy. Various entries in the article have their own article as well making the content encyclopedic. Muneebll (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Muneebll, ...all this information has to be added back in the main article which will make it lengthy. Not really. Various entries in the article have their own article... I don't see that. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except for documentaries, most does. Documentaries also have sources given. In filmography sections, not every entry has article but we still mention them because the main subject is notable. Regardless of your ~~superficial~~ personal view, content of this article being encyclopedic has to be on Wikipedia, either in this article or main article. Muneebll (talk) 08:51, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Muneebll, Regardless of your superficial view WP:ADHOM. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Not really, I don't see that...isn't a proper response either. WP:PPOV Muneebll (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Saqib: are you suggesting that the content in this page be merged selectively into the main one? That seems to be the most logical outcome. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      CherryPie94, Sure, why not. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. NOTDIR and fails NLIST. No notability for a standalone list. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Inter-Services Public Relations selectively: per @Saqib. A directory not discussed together by a reliable source without appropriate list criteria should not be kept. If ISPR was 8000 words long (it is a small fraction of that), WP:SIZESPLIT is possible. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This list meets the "information" criterion of WP:LISTPURPOSE, with verifiable information about a specific aspect of the activity of the subject, and it's not appropriate for a merge because it would make the parent article significantly longer and less focused. There's no requirement for each of the individual items to be "significant" or independently notable. It doesn't meet the criteria of WP:NOTDIR (the contents are well-organized, (mostly) verified and include contextual info) so that element of the nomination doesn't apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Dclemens1971, WP:LISTPURPOSE Why are you referencing WP:MOS? You should cite a notability related policy or guideline. it's not appropriate for a merge Not all items on this list will be merged; only specific parts will be. There's no requirement for each of the individual items to be "significant" or independently notable Do you have any notability related policies or guidelines that confirm this? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  NLIST cites LISTPURPOSE, so it is connected to a notability guideline and appropriate to cite here. As for the notability of individual list entries, see the second criterion under WP:CSC; there can be valid informational purposes for lists whose individual entries are not notable and I think that’s the case here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydo h8^[contribs] 00:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Didi Zindabad

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

Fails WP:GNG. With the exception of one source, everything falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Churnalism and press releases as well as no-bylined articles. CNMall41 (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Bangladesh, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zee_Bangla#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is not even a newspaper name under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. And the page is well notable. So I think it needs to be kept.

103.127.222.50 (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - By checking the reference, you will understand that the coverages are very significant. Besides, no reference of Newspaper under WP:NEWSORGINDIA has been used here. Nilpriyo (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No GNG whatsoever. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- These references [[17]],

[[18]],[[19]] clearly passes WP:GNG.103.102.136.170 (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Happy's Place (2024 show)

Time War (Doctor Who)

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

Wikipedia is not the TARDIS data core. This article is a nonsense. It is written as though describing a real conflict. Most, if not all, of the references are primary sources/the actual episodes of the show where this war is mentioned, including the BBC (the show's production company), Big Finish Productions (the production company for the audio adaptation), BBC Books (the publisher for book adaptations), and Doctor Who fan sites. From my research, all sources related to this fictional-war originate either those primary sources, or from standard run-of-the-mill coverage to promote an episode, with only passing mention of the fictional-war, and no analysis of it. ~~Delete!~~ Per Pokelego999's comment, I'm amending to Merge with Doctor Who (mainly the non-primary-sourced material). Svampesky (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC), amended 02:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Svampesky (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage is a bit buried in the depths of promo material, but a brief search yielded some results. Reviews of The Day of the Doctor (The 50th Anniversary special which got a lot more in-depth coverage than most episodes) tend to yield bits (Such as this AV Club source). I found a Gizmodo source discussing the War in its entirety, though its coverage is smattered throughout the article. This book has a whole chapter on the War, while this book seems to discuss it in association with The Doctor's character a fair bit. A brief glance at this book and this book yields promise, as do a few hits for books in regards to Psychology about the Doctor in association with the War, but admittedly these I can't fully access enough to judge. Given the Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, I'd warrant there's probably more discussing its role within the context of the show, but I only did a brief search, so I'd be happy for other editors to also do searches to see what else I didn't see. Either way, the Time War definitely seems to have coverage, if scattered, that shows its notability, though as the nom said the article definitely needs a rewrite at some point in the future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. I've amended my nomination to merge. [T]he Time War's large role in the narrative of Doctor Who and its effect on the Doctor's character, yes; but outside of the Doctor Who fictional-universe, I still don't think it passes any of the points of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV for it to have a stand-alone article. Svampesky (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know that's a non sequitur, right? Nothing is notable inside or outside of any fictional universe; they're either notable, or they are not. We don't have to have documentation of time war reenactors in order to keep the article... we just need independent reliable sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail. In point of fact, "real world" manifestations such as toys are often ignored entirely as non-independent (the same people are making money off of them...) when assessing the notability of fictional topics that CAN be so manifested. Jclemens (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note. One of the books you cited The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who (ISBN: 9781849909389) is published by BBC Books, which is a subsidiary of the production company of the show. Svampesky (talk) 03:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I'm unaware of the circumstances with the BBC (Since its publishing is largely unrelated to the original show) so I'm not sure if it has a use case or not. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although commentary is needed in the article, that can be done with the sources suggested above, even if discounting the BBC book, and therefore notability is established. Daranios (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to either History of the Time Lords#The Time War (sketchy notability itself) or Time Lord (where it is mentioned throughout). I am having difficulty imagining how this article would even look if written with an encyclopedic out-of universe approach (MOS:REALWORLD): Plot doesn't have production design or casting. In short: I believe this topic is unfixable as a standalone article, even with the sources provided above. I wouldn't mind selective merging. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Time War was a mostly off-screen event, so casting information is irrelevant. Either way, I'd propose an organization of:

-Developmental information (I know it exists as I've seen bits of it floating around before and I'm aware of a few sources I'd need to double check, but I'd need to do a more thorough search than what I've done above)

-Basic summary of the event, which could probably condense the information in the article to a readable state.

-Reception and Analysis of the War's role in the show's narrative.

I'm confused what you mean by the article being entirely unfixable. It needs a massive rewrite, but it's not undoable with more in-depth rewrites and research. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My nomination still stands as 'Merge with Doctor Who', but I am willing to collaborate on a Draft: of this article if the outcome of this AfD is 'Draftify' and explore additional secondary sources with other editors who are interested in contributing. Please, drop a message on my talk page to notify me if this happens. Svampesky (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The Time War is literally synonymous with the plot of Doctor Who. It is what the entire series is about. We already have Doctor Who, History of Doctor Who, History of the Time Lords, Time Lord, and Whoniverse to deal with this information. Several of those also have major gaps in sourcing. Do we really need multiple poorly written articles about the same thing? Please let's start with one article with independent reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't true; the Time War is a relatively small part of the overall story of Doctor Who. Toughpigs (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rule out Doctor Who and History of Doctor Who, as those are primarily out of universe production information. In the case of the Time War, analysis of its role wouldn't be fitting to place in an article like one of those. Whoniverse additionally is more focused on the actual umbrella brand these days. I'm partial to one of the Time Lord articles should it come down to that, but I'd have to take a closer look to see which is better (I'd honestly AfD History of the Time Lords as well- that article is in a very bad state and can easily be condensed to the original Time Lord article) Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete checking through the article shows there is nothing there to assert WP:SIGCOV. Sources are nothing but mainly of BBC and affliated sources, per WP:PRIMARY. It maybe notable to the Who fanbase but is it notable for Wikipedia. Articles like this needs to be put out of its misery, fans should be reminded that Wikipedia is not Fandom. WP:ATD will be a redirect SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on the sources listed above? Given your rationale is mostly focused on the current state, I'm curious about the above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Books is WP:PRIMARY. gizmodo is fine, that's one in. As with The Scientific Secrets of Doctor Who, I don't know how much is it about the subject to save it from deletion. As with Religion and Doctor Who, I feel there is a small amount is given to the subject. I feel there is not enough to save itself from a merger, which I think is the best outcome. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can't do further research on the subject later, given my search was rather light. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for the time being; WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The article has been tagged as needing attention, so a good-faith attempt to fix the article should be the first step. If, after removing everything that doesn't meet the required standards, the article still doesn't meet WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV, then we can return to the question of deleting or merging it. I don't think we can discuss merging now as the article is far too long for a simple merge. So I come back, again, to - fix the article first. (ETA: forgot to say, WP:TARDIS is an essay, not a guideline; for a convincing deletion argument, I would like to see actual WP guidelines referenced as well, to clearly demonstrate the official standards not met).

JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JustAnotherCompanion: The notices have been on the page for over two years. As I said above, my nomination remains; but I'm willing to collaborate with editors if this AfD closes as draftify and we restart it from scratch in the Draft: space and work with secondary sources. Svampesky (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment found some more sources including this one. This one has some scattered bits on how it affected the Doctor's psychology, this one has some brief bits on its production history, this seems to be promising but I can't scan it entirely. The main problem I'm having with my search is that there are a lot of hits but I can't gauge coverage due to the amount of paywalls blocking me (Especially with Scholar, where there a lot of promising hits on things like war and psychology). It seems highly promising nonetheless given what I can preview though, but if anyone can gauge any of the Scholar sources I'd greatly appreciate it. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an AfD outcome per the above additional sourcing. No objection to further merging as a consensus discussion (but not forced by AfD) outcome. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a small consensus to Keep this article but even supporters of this position agree that the article needs an overhaul. But I doubt it can be rewritten during the period of this AFD though. Please review sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Time Lord, per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:PRESERVE. The sources heavily cover this as part of their coverage of the Time Lords, and I don't see separate WP:SIGCOV for different articles covering basically the same thing.
Most !votes consent to a merge/redirect. SpacedFarmer and the AFD nominator are delete !votes who have suggested a redirect. Pokelego999 and JClemens are keep !votes who are considering merge targets. JustAnotherCompanion would accept a potential merge, but they have concerns about doing it too quickly or clumsily. The easiest way to reach a consensus is to close this as a merge, and allow the tag to sit there as long as needed to import anything that isn't already covered at Time Lord. The amount of content to WP:PRESERVE can be determined through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above, Merge/Redirect to Time Lord. MohReddy (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: My previous relisting comment stands. I do not see a consensus to Merge or Redirect and I don't see those arguing to Keep as suggesting it as their choice, at best, Merge/Redirect is preferable to Deletion but I see very limited support for Deletion. Even the nominator is suggesting Merge over Deletion. Right now, there is No consensus but I'd still like to see a review of sources brought up in this discussion. Of course, closers work independently and another closer might see this situation differently but this is what I see from reviewing this discussion a second time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be WP:ALLPLOT, and I don't see anything fit for merge. The article is a relic of the before-FANDOM days when anything and everything was permitted. The merge arguments are clearly motivated by fan sentiment rather than policy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Would you accept a redirect or a partial merge? The other delete !votes (SpacedFarmer and Svampesky) have commented that they would accept that, in order to find an WP:ATD that looks for WP:CONSENSUS with most of the keep !votes, who have also suggested a merge as acceptable. The amount of content to merge could then be resolved through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd accept a redirect if that means it won't come to a "no consensus" closure. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep see above sources were found. Your argument seems to the in the lane of WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. Additionally not to long ago additional time war content was released which may be noteable in its own right. See [20][21][22] Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Television

Other XfDs

Television proposed deletions

Leave a Reply