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.
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:
The sources used explain the tv series as a whole. So, it might be a good merge/redirect candidate with just the ratings pushed through. The target would be the main article The Great Pottery Throw Down.
Merge into the main article. The result tables of the individual episodes seem overkill, but the result summaries and the ratings are probably worthwhile. – sgeurekat•c12:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary incomplete disambiguation page (WP:INCDAB) of non-articles when IMO Ghost Rider (disambiguation) already takes care of all three entries. No incoming links. Redirecting it to the dab page as the (to me) obvious fix got reverted, so more discussion may be needed.
Entry #1: a redirect to a character list bullet point for a fictional character that had a non-speaking cameo appearance in the TV series
Entry #2: a redirect to a character list section for a one-season recurring character; it's debatable if this incarnation needs to be added to the dab page beyond the general character
Merge to Ghost Rider (disambiguation)#Television and redirect: Links there are already provided to the comics versions, which in turn have references to the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. versions, but that disambiguation page does not include the direct links to the TV versions. I believe it would be beneficial to have those links as well. Daranios (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please review the dab page and my nom, which indicate no merge (strictly) necessary. One link is already at the dab page, one is so trivial that it shouldn't be merged, and one is indirectly at the dab page via Ghost_Rider_(Robbie_Reyes)#Television. The reader will find everything they want via the general dab page already. – sgeurekat•c15:42, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgeureka: Please review the merge statments above. I agree that merging those additional links is not strictly necessary as they can be found in a roundabout way, but for anyone whose interest starts from the TV appearance, it would be easier to have them. In my view that includes the brief mention, too. And if we can make life more convenient for one group of Wikipedia readers, why shouldn't we. Daranios (talk) 10:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disagreeing with you, but I want to make clear that I am opposed to merging all, and I am opposed to this INCDAB existing, both of which Gonnym explicitly argues for in word and action. That's all. :-) – sgeurekat•c11:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This simply does not belong here at all, can't even keep focused on the content involved with sidebars involving 'shows within a show', has completely uncited dates and fanon, and grossly violates WP:ACCESS with WP:SMALLTEXT and inappropriate use of notes. I expect responses to try to dissuade me because the worst members of WP:PW (not all including the nom here; some of them I've bumped into through other show and network articles though) maintain a hellscape I have no interest in ever interacting with, and that'll remain so with this vote!. Nate•(chatter)23:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The problem appears to be with WP:CORPDEPTH in particular, since there was only trivial coverage in virtually every source I found. The sources already in the article are IMDB or trivial announcements such as a business agreement or the opening of a studio. Tagged for notability since 2011. Fathoms Below(talk)19:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or weak keep. The current article state has too much WP:UNDUE plot and could be cut down to fit in the LoC no problem (most other main characters don't have standalone articles either). On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if there are enough sources to turn this topic into a Good Article, so it needn't stay merged forever. – sgeurekat•c12:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notable for only being the main bachelor of The Bachelor (American TV series) season 2, the target that the nominated page should be redirected to. (The Bachelor (American TV series) is an alternative, but I prefer just season-specific.) His activities outside the series don't measure up to make WP:BIO1E (if not WP:BLP1E) inapplicable. Furthermore, the second season of The Bachelor may not have been a major event as it is perceived or marketed to be, despite good or decent viewership. If the cited rules don't apply, how about WP:PAGEDECIDE instead? George Ho (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim of notability as a media entrepreneur is weak and lacks the in-depth reliable and verifiable sources required to back up the claim. Recording songs for release on iTunes is an even weaker claim of notability, not does his work as a teacher reach any notability standard. I was unable to find any meaningful in-depth coverage for him in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail notability guidelines. Most of the article’s sources are student newspapers by the author’s own description. Could not find reliable significant coverage in my search. Has been previously deleted. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was kept as a draft. It was nominated for deletion as a draft by a non-good-faith actor. But that is not evidence that there was a consensus that the subject is notable after someone challenged its notability. Drafts are not deleted for lack of notability so a draft being kept does not mean that editors thought that the subject is notable. —Alalch E.15:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, maybe, but the page was discussed and the then-draft found promising by some users, whereas deletion was NOT discussed, so that stating ’has been previously deleted’ here (an AfD venue, where consensus is what matters) is misleading imv. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)21:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about all there is [1] for sourcing and it's not enough. Rest of what's used is marginally reliable sources per Source Highlighter, so not much of anything we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Egyptian actor of dubious notability. Sole provided reference does not cover subject in depth, nothing better found in English, but better references may be available in Arabic. Possibly eligible for a G5 speedy because author has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet, but taking to AfD on the off chance that evidence of notability can be found. --Finngalltalk22:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the subject appears to pass WP:ENT because he “has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.” On the other hand sourcing isn’t great. There are a couple of other Mohamed Tharwats (not actors) and some of the sources about this one are chatty interviews but I found 1, 2 and 3 after a non-intensive search. Mccapra (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is an unreferenced list of productions that he may or may not have acted in. Nothing would be lost be deleting, and if anyone ever wanted to write a real article about him with, y'know, sources, they could do that at any time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think these could be in a single large list or grouped by decade rather than as dozens of season-based pages. The concept is fine since there are a lot of notable sketches (and sketches/characters with enough coverage to warrant mention in a list but not a standalone article), but the ones that have only appeared twice or otherwise lack context should be trimmed. Reywas92Talk22:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is probably the best course, starting with this one. There are so many of these that we do need to have an intelligent discussion about how to (re-)organize them. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating for deletion as a BEFORE check does not show any significant coverage of the article subject. I am also unable to locate within any of the references used in the article, Evidence of significant coverage. Most of the article is entirely unsourced and appears to constitute original research. There is no secondary coverage available to substantiate many of the claims made. The article would have to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopaedic and I do not believe there is sufficient sourcing out there to do so. This means deletion is I believe the most appropriate option available. It is possible that some of the works this man has been a producer for our notable however notability is not inherited and he would still need to meet the criteria set out at WP:NPRODUCER, which he does not. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Appearing during a particular filming and as an alternate role doesn't always show notability, because sometimes, those type of actors aren't covered in multiple reliable sources. And that's the see here. Appearing also in music videos doesn't show either, hence this is a prompt lack of WP:SIGCOV. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!00:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page reads as WP:PROMO. Out of 13 sources on the page, 7 are unreliable sources and the 6 others are very poor with passing mention. Fails notability. The subject's achievements are not notable that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is unsourced, and searches are bringing up some mentions, but nothing that would be considered significant coverage. There were only two sketches, which I do not think really meets the threshold for it to be considered recurring. Rorshacma (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How much episodes are needed so that it can be properly accepted as an article? 10? 20? The series is expected to have 40+ eps. Exukvera (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a few months this discussion will be pointless. All series in this franchise have a separate episode list because the main article would be too big with it. Some anime episode lists have 12 episodes or less, specially when there are multiple seasons with a separate article for each season. You can consider this as a list for another season in a 50+ yrs long show. Exukvera (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The episode section in the main article only has the titles. It would be too big with the titles and summaries and references for each ep. All Tokusatsu pages are made in a similar fashion. Exukvera (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exukvera, don't move an article being discussed at an AFD to Draft space. It won't stop this discussion. If you would like this article draftified, then cast a vote for "Draftify". But don't take action yourself on this. LizRead!Talk!05:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I so much sense resubmitting after another. But if there is a bit notability, like appearing on non-notable films, and likely may later be notable in the future, I will support userfying. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!15:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did remove all of the really iffy links, and there's not much left to say. It's full of lists with no sources, and I admit I fear a COI since this has all be done by a single editor who is also a SPA. I also have a memory of this coming by recently, yet the first AfD seems to have been in 2009. This article was created in March of this year. It was declined at AfC three times, then the editor moved it from draft to main space. Lamona (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created this article, though I am pretty certain I was not logged in at the time, and I completely agree that it should be deleted. Wikipedia's rules on notability have obviously tightened up a *lot* in the last two decades, and the site does not need anorak trivia with no notability beyond that small and self-perpetuating niche - it fills me with embarrassment, the stuff I thought was acceptable here two decades ago. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She still needs much more experience as a recognized and outstanding actress, page without relevance required Alon9393 (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the top rated series on the Marathi television right now... It has enough reliable sources to meet notable guidelines... (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2024
I'm not sure who "yeu aga maj" is. I've been contributing information to Wikipedia for the past two years and my focus is solely on sharing content. Rajubhaiyya (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stay, you have reliable sources The Times India, The Hindustan News, News18, among others, it also has encyclopedic development and maintains relevance in what it does as a video blogger. Alon9393 (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That particular role is certainly not a lead but could be considered significant. See plot Summary. (If ImDb cannot be used to establish notability, I don’t think it is fair to use it to establish non-notability) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)14:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(My initial !vote above is about Zen-chan Tsū-chan). I hadn't seen this was a bundled nom when I !voted through the assisted script. Procedural keep. These series have very little in common. And it's hard to discuss and improve the 3 at the same time without long tedious explanations and comments about what precisely is relevant to each case. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)11:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC) (The nominator indicates they nominated the pages "with the same reason" but the 2nd article has >10 references to reliable newspapers on JaWP, for example.)[reply]
I would like to see some way to keep the content, and suggest a merge to Fuji Television. For the ones which are made by Fuji, which doesn't include Zen-chan (please, please, don't do combined nominations of disparate articles!). Not sure about Zen-chan, as like @Mushy Yank this came up as a single article for me and I hadn't given it any thought before starting this commentOn Pinch to Punch it's unfortunate that there is so little secondary material out there although it seems even the primary material has been lost. This attests to its importance in the context of the development of Anime. This article could be perfectly happy as a stub, verified by what little information is out there, but it's hard to make a case for IAR on this. Oblivy (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with developing these articles would be our inability to access archives which would have information about an anime series from 50 years ago. Hard to imagine that Pinch and Punch, a series with 156 episodes airing on a national TV channel, wouldn't be notable with access to the correct archives. If someone is interested, perhaps Fuji or the National Film Archive of Japan can help? I would personally either keep or merge the articles at a minimum. DCsansei (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is no consensus here. But I don't see any support for Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to decide if I will draftify this article but this feels like it's too soon to have the a standalone article. The award and the 1st edition of the award itself is notable but this specific category as of now, seems no notable. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 05:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Fox affiliates. No sources, no article and all but the Fox affiliation does bring in an argument they should become one with the Fox affiliation list articles. --Danubeball (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a Merge suggestion but you must provide a link to the preferred target article. Thank you. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!03:19, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is enough WP:GNG for a separate article & potential for expansion. As a Brazilian, I can confirm that there are multiple other sources available in Portuguese that can be added to expand the article. Skyshiftertalk15:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That's a greater number of sources than I had been able to find (my Google search for "Nazaré Confusa" was returning completely off-topic results by page 4). I got zero hits on Google News; I hadn't even thought to check Google Scholar, given the topic — good call. I've changed my !vote to Keep after reviewing the links. GhostOfNoMeme03:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: AfDs are for deletion not for discussing if a redirect is appropriate. That should have been made on the talk page of the article. And only if such a discussion had not allowed to reach any consensus should we have been discussing this here. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)22:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mushy Yank, it's not unusual for a nominator to propose a Redirect or Merge instead of a Deletion. In fact, it's pretty common so I don't understand why you are scolding this editor. LizRead!Talk!01:27, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sorry if I sounded agressive but I mentioned this because if they don’t wish deletion or think it’s a fair or even possible outcome, they should not open an AfD but rather discuss the merge on the merge discussion they can open and the redirect on the talk page, or boldly redirect the page and explain why. If my advice was wrong, I apologise. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)08:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATD-R: If the change is disputed via a reversion, an attempt should be made to reach a consensus before blank-and-redirecting again. Suitable venues for doing so include the article's talk page and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Only applies to redirecting. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but please, I must insist, and quote your quote:"If the change is disputed via a reversion": was this the case here? and did I mean anything else in my initial comment? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)13:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. But that was and is exactly my point: why take (potentially notable or apparently popular) pages to Afds if you suggest a redirect i.e. if you think a redirect is to be considered? Just ASK competent users. Discussions can happen ON TALK PAGES OF ARTICLES: that is why they have been created. USE TALK PAGES not AfDs. (I’m not shouting, nor upset, mere emphasis). Thanks again. I’ll leave this discussion now. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, AfDs suggest redirects all the time. It's pretty much just accepted. See: Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep/Should we permit deletion nominations advocating for a redirect? which ended in: Allowing the nominator to advocate redirect is current practice, and this debate shows no consensus to change that. The case is also well made that this has obvious utility in establishing an unambiguous consensus that an article should not exist in its own right, even if a redirect is appropriate.
On the other hand: There is a clear numerical and policy-weighed consensus that AfD is a right venue to seek for redirect(s), which have been challenged. The first attempt at redirection ought be directly attempted per our principles of being bold. – from this discussion. Nevertheless, deciding to head straight to AfD is arguably itself WP:BOLD! Regardless, it's a fairly regular occurrence that rarely gets questioned or challenged. I don't see the harm in it, myself. GhostOfNoMeme13:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Am I therefore correct to assume that there is no consensus regarding the question? I apologise if I was wrong or too harsh but my personal view remains unchanged: AfDs take time and efforts and involve many or at least various users; they are limited in time; my point is that they should be used for deletion and deletion only or at least only if deletion is considered a fair outcome by the nominator. Talk pages exist for a reason and if a rough consensus is reached to redirect or if a redirect is explained and unchallenged on the talk page (or boldly performed, and not challenged nor reverted, obviously), AfDs should not even be considered (imho). Thanks again, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)18:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Candidates for BLAR often have little attention and little page watching. Combined with the absence of a categorizing template to attract foreign attention, I expect many such talk page proposals to have little participation.To me and many others, BLAR and merging are just deletion with extra steps: slapping a redirect on it and, in the latter case, adding content to the merge target. I don't see how that takes so much more effort, why it should take unlimited time, or how the core question on whether the article can stand alone is any different. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Films/television/music..and Web etc have categorized templates; and I beg to differ: AfDs take more effort, or at least a different kind of efforts, in particular because they are limited in time (I am not saying they should not), and the core question is not the same (should we delete this#can we redirect this?). Also, people on the talk page of an article are in general more competent regarding the topic and are generally there with the idea of improving the page (and with more knowledge or more interest for the topic) (with time), not getting rid of potential crap (in a hurry). Different mindsets (in general; obviously the same persons might show up at both venues). In the present case, if this had been discussed before, that would have saved us some time, I think, as this will be kept and should not imv have come here and wouldn’t have if it had been discussed thoroughly with knowledgeable competent willing users on the talk page. Also taking the page to Afd might be disheartening for the creator and casts a shadow of doubt on the page, it is not a random let alone insignificant maintenance process and this shows through the tag (during the 8 days or 1 month of the discussion) and through the Old Afd template (unexperienced readers might see it and think ’Hey, look, wait, they say this might be rubbish’) A talk page where redirect is discussed offers none of these shortcomings, at least in my opinion as reader. Anyway, maybe this is not the place for such a long discussion, and thank you for your input and time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Skyshifter kindly replied to share the Portuguese-language sources she had referenced some days earlier, and after reading through them I'm changing my vote. Her sources are more numerous than I had been able to find myself, and a majority appear to be WP:RS. The coverage is more than passing mention and the focus is on the meme itself; not wholly separate from Renata Sorrah, naturally, but sufficiently so in my view to establish separate notability. The Google Scholar search was an interesting avenue I hadn't thought to explore. With WP:GNG satisfied I think the article should be kept. GhostOfNoMeme02:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage in reliable sources, including BBC and The Hindu, and bylined articles in other media, indicating her notability as social media personality, politician, or related to her death. She meets the requirements, in my opinion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)20:56, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi M S Hassan. Thanks for reviewing this article. However Wikipedia platform is created with principles and articles of public interest which has notability and I feel this article has. Request you to withdraw this notice.Thanks.Gardenkur (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2024 (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.
This article is based on interviews or publicity material in which the subject makes various claims of extraordinary musical ability and success. There are no reliable sources independent of the subject for these claims. gnu5718:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have just looked on Nexis which I have access to through my university, and there are sources on there for at least part of the article. I'd be happy to go through and resolve the sourcing issues on these pages with those sources (I am going to do this now regardless). It would seem a shame to delete the article with those options around. Flatthew (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearly a number of claims in the article are not based in reality, but the article is worth a re-do. There is something here, even if it's obviously not what is outlined. Flatthew (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that a number of otherwise reliable publications appear to be taking the subject's claims at face value. The 50,000 albums sold is almost certainly false. The famous relatives are unverifiable. The audio tracks on YouTube attributed to Dark are actually studio recordings by other singers (e.g., [11][12]). I have found no indication that the subject has ever performed live, in any setting. gnu5710:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That’s an interesting point that otherwise reliable sources interview a subject and take their claims at face value when perhaps they aren’t accurate. I noticed in a Wales on Sunday article I found it was written that she performed with a band called Enigma, but there are a couple bands with that name neither of which list her as a member. But that doesn’t mean she didn’t perform with them. There’s also a CD she released but now that I think about it I couldn’t find it. So while my recommendation was ‘’’keep’’’ based on WP:RS guidance, I do have pause… Nnev66 (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement about the adequacy of the sources. An assessment would be helpful of new sources. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
There are several sides to this. But firstly, an episode of a television series is not inherently notable simply because it has aired. I don't find any pass on WP:GNG for this eleventh episode of season 4 of South Park. Secondly, there is 4th Grade (South Park episode) which currently redirects to South Park season 4, which makes this title a duplicate of the former. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every other episode of South Park with the exception of this one had a Wikipedia article, which is why this one was created. For some reason, for this single episode in particular, it just had a redirect to the season 4 page rather than an article. Retaining the article for this episode and fixing the redirect behavior to point to this rather than the season 4 article is more consistent with how every other episode in the series is handled. Onyxqk (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also included a Production section in the article that cites an interview printed in a newspaper at the time about the episode's conception. This aligns the article more with the existing Wikipedia articles on South Park episodes. Onyxqk (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom -- no inherent notability. The three references used here aren't in-depth covreage of this specific eposide, so they don't help the subject meet WP:GNG. WP:OTHERTHINGS doesn't help, and there's no requirement for completeness. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:OTHERTHINGS: 'If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point. In this manner, using an "Other Stuff Exists" angle provides for consistency.' Onyxqk (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every South Park character has an article, but every South Park episode (except possibly this one) has an article. The example mentioned in WP:OTHERTHINGS is about applying the same treatment to articles that fall into an identical category (whether it's Star Wars main characters or South Park episodes). Onyxqk (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to South Park season 4#ep59. The title of an episode is a reasonable search term, so redirecting is a better option than deleting, but the current article has too little coverage – in the current references, the only coverage of this specific episode is too brief to justify an entire article. More sources such as episode reviews from notable sites would be needed to keep the article, though I couldn't find any. (From a quick glance, a lot of other season 4 episodes could probably be redirected as well, so having this article because every other episode has an article is a bad argument.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing stance to keep per the sources below, though I stand by my note that many other season 4 articles are in poor condition and could be redirected (and since this episode was a mid-season premiere of sorts, it likely earned more attention than those episodes). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The review notes: "There's a renewed energy in co-creator Trey Parker's script. Even the opening credits, with the splash of explosions and the techno-laden theme song, punctuate that the show, with 62 episodes now behind it, is not resting on its profitable laurels. The fourth grade brings a new teacher, a Janet Reno look-alike in need of a bra and whose name can't be printed in a family newspaper. ...As "South Park" storytelling goes, this one is fairly straightforward and very funny. This opener is an indication that "South Park" hasn't lost its snap. Parker and co-creator Matt Stone still care passionately for the cartoon, and it is obvious. At this point, many shows—especially live-action comedies—have run out of ideas. But "South Park" retains its rebellious spirit. The fourth grade, it seems, will be very good for the show."
The review notes: "All the tangy ingredients of writer-director Parker's patented pop culture stew are there. Cartman and the gang forge into fourth grade amid intrigue, taking in "Star Trek's" time-travel babble, the explosive suspense of "Speed" and former teacher Mr. Garrison's spiritual journey through "the tree of insight" toward his suppressed gay side. The usual nasty-boy word and eye play return in the person of oddly endowed new teacher Ms. Choksondik. There's even a rockin' new opening that elevates wheelchair pal Timmy to full-fledged regular status. But the pieces don't fit together quite as brightly as usual, making the whole somewhat less than the sum of its individually clever parts."
The review notes: "As always, there's a demented kind of uplift here. Hypocrites are skewered, personal growth is encouraged and Timmy is treated with a rough fellowship that may be more politically correct than the show's creators OR its detractors would want to admit. Still this is a show that will send a lot of people screaming from the room. ... There's nothing in this episode quite as taboo-busting or as funny as the explicit love affair between Saddam Hussein and Satan in the "South Park" movie and one episode last season. But there's still enough off-color humor, graphic language and generally twisted mentality on display to give Bill Bennett a cerebral hemorrhage."
The article notes: "Tonight marks the start of a new season for the boys and girls at "South Park," the twisted, animated brainchild of Matt Stone and Trey Parker that airs on Comedy Central. Kyle, Cartman, and their pals enter fourth grade and are thrust into the horrific clutches of Ms. Choksondik, who forces cursive writing upon them. They lament "it's the end of innocence" and immediately persuade two "Star Trek"-freak college geeks to build a time machine to send them back to third grade."
The review notes: "South Park returns tonight, with Kyle, Cartman and company promoted—somehow—to the fourth grade, where their new teacher, Miss Choksondik (no, it's not very subtle), is a fearsome creature with really, really pendulous breasts and a floating right pupil. It's bad enough for the guys to get nostalgic about third grade, and before long, they're building a time machine, which unsurprisingly creates chaos, and not much after that, right after the rather belated and lame "Speed" parody, Kenny dies, and a brand-new catch phrase is born."
The article notes: ""South Park: The Fourth Grade Years" (10 p.m. today on Comedy Central, Comcast Channel 65) will follow Stan, Kyle, Kenny and Cartman into a new grade, with a new teacher, as creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone find more playground for the boys to trod."
The review notes: "Those foul-talking kids from South Park (Comedy Central, 10 p.m. ET/PT) face the end of innocence as they are promoted to the fourth grade. Happily, age has not dimmed their ability to make you laugh helplessly, or to leave you gasping at their robust tastelessness."
Are these "significant coverage"? They're all capsule reviews. The longest seems to be the Kronke article, which is just a plot summary. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Boston Globe article includes an interview with the creators about the episode and is several paragraphs long (more than solely a plot summary). The Boston Herald article is a review that is also several paragraphs long. The Newsday article also includes a review of the episode including its downsides (rather than just summarizing). Will update the article on the episode to include a 'Reception' section with the coverage in these reliable sources. Onyxqk (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Included a Reception section featuring reviews from three reliable sources and included information from the interview with the Boston Globe in the Production section. Onyxqk (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable secondary sources identified in this discussion which together enable a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It would be good to add viewership numbers if anyone is able to find that. I wasn't able to find it at a quick glance, so it may take a bit deeper digging. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。)19:20, 13 September 2024 (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.
I agree with redirecting. Even though these are sister channels, TV JOJ is the primary one, and its article provides some information that may be of interest to ones looking up JOJ WAU. Janhrach (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I am not sure about the merits of the proposed redirect as the article lists that target page (TV JOJ) as the sister station to this one. Any additional thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk)19:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I previously PRODded the article with the rationale being "Not notable - no in-depth independent coverage". It was deprodded by Mushy Yank with a note to look at the Slovak article. There indeed are some sources, but the only claims they make about this channel are:
that it became available on DVB-T (with some technical details), and
that Towercom resumed broadcasting it.
These two claims hardly constitute significant coverage, therefore I am renominating this article for deletion, this time at AfD. Janhrach (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not a list. It is an ordinary article about the channel – it is list-like because of its low quality. The article on Markíza also shouldn't be list-like; it even carries the "not a directory" improvement template. Janhrach (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SPLITLIST is not only about stricto sensu list articles, but anyway, yes, the article is a list. It has an introduction but it is very much in the list format, as yourself admit. As for the rest, feel free to discuss it on the article TP. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why would this article count as SPLITLIST. The article Markíza is about a different, sister, channel; not about the company (at least primarily).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no firm consensus. Also, participants, avoid "per X" comments which are practically valueless. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You think "sigh" was rude and provocative? Compared to names I've been calles on this platform, it seems polite to me. It is just expressing exasperation, it's not about you. LizRead!Talk!01:06, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still no consensus. A discussion of specific sources and whether or not they help establish notability would be welcome. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!02:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The film does not appear to be significant by the rules of Wikipedia WP:MOVIE. No detailed coverage in authoritative references, no reviews, no awards.--Анатолий Росдашин (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2 of 3 of the above sources appear sufficiently in-depth to count--the Stateboro Herald being the exception. No objection to an editorial discussion about merging this into List of films about Anne Frank, but I do not believe the sourcing is so bad that a forced merge or redirect from AfD is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cultural depictions of Anne Frank without prejudice, as an improper SPINOFF. While there is no problem with the notability of this film, i.e. the intro is mistaken, the write up is short and entirely missing at the parent level. We need to fix that first before a detailed (!) article will be justified. gidonb (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The ProQuest links above are capsule reviews (a single paragraph, at most). So even if we had 100 of them, there would not be enough content to substantiate a standalone article. I.e., it's missing the "significance" part of the general notability guideline. These are periodicals that review materials indiscriminately to advise librarians on what content to acquire. Everything that these capsule reviews say can be summarized within a short blurb in Cultural depictions of Anne Frank. The other news sources above similarly do not describe the topic in depth. czar01:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Shorter reviews carry more weight if there's a lot of them, and there seems to be a decent amount here. A non-terrible article could be made from this if anyone wished to try. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article describes this as a TV film, but it looks like it premiered at a film festival and was (presumably) later screened on TV. Unless there's coverage that explicitly states that this was made for TV and happened to premiere elsewhere first, we should probably treat this under NFILM. Which it looks like everyone is doing, but I wanted to voice that here just in case. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。)19:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it was produced by a TV station, so that's where the TV aspect comes in. I'm kind of torn on this. On one hand, it does look like the film is routinely included in various exhibits on Anne Frank and the Holocaust. A copy is also held in the collections of the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and the Anne Frank House has info about it and various ways to watch it on their website, so I'd assume it's also archived there as well. This would point towards it being notable, but there's also not a lot of info so a list page could be good as well. The main thing that makes it stand out is that when it released, it had the only footage that had been shot of Anne. I've cleaned the article up so it looks a bit better and less like a stub. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。)20:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]