Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television

WP:DELSORT/TV

	WikiProject Television

Project main page
Project discussion
Project assessment	talk
Television portal	talk
Descendant WikiProjects and task forces
Showcase

Project organization
Article alerts
Deletion sorting
Popular pages
New articles
Project banner	talk
Project category	talk
Project templates	talk
Television stubs

Guidelines
Project manual of style	talk
Project notability guidelines	talk
TV article naming convention	talk
Broadcasting article naming convention	talk

Related WikiProjects
Actors and Filmmakers
Albums
Animation
Anime and manga
Comics
Film
Literature
Media franchises
Radio
Screenwriters
Westerns

view · edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Television. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Television|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Television. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

Purge page cache

watch

Scan for TV related AfDs
This will only scan about 1,500 categories. Go here to tweak which ones are scanned.

Related deletion sorting

Television

David Prager

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

No independent sources found since article creation in 2006. No indication of notablity. Hipal (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate issues here: notability, and sourcing.

I would Keep on the basis of notability. This would be on the basis of his role in founding Revision3 (we have articles on the other two founders). Being the son of Dennis Prager is certainly interesting, but doesn't convey notability. I'm sure his prominent parent was a help to his career, but I don't see it as crucial enough for a "famous son" article.

Poor sourcing would still be a reason to delete, so I'm neutral on that one. Although I'd be surprised if it can't be improved to an acceptable level. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, atrociously poor sourcing, and I can't find anything better out there either. I will reconsider if somebody with better search skills than mine should turn up one or two secondary reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject. Bishonen | tålk 22:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Computing, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of channels owned by Sun TV Network

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Also provide little functionality since most are redirects to the page where the list should be at anyway. CNMall41 (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Safari

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

Non-notable film. Unreferenced. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 17:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 17:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Barely explains anything, no references as per nom Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 18:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United States of America. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 21:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Amador

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

Biography sourced only by IMDb. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Journalism, and California. Cabayi (talk) 11:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing here of substance. Nothing on an internet search or anything else. The Imdb sources look like he might have had a very minor "reporter" role. Reporters on TV come and go, but this one doesn't show up anywhere. — Maile (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only linked source is the subject's IMDB page and a quick Google search shows no results of note. Fails GNG. Madeleine961 (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised there's as little material as I've found. Amador was indeed the weather presenter at KHJ from 1983 to 1989 (he was dumped in a massive overhaul of the station), he was indeed at KNX, and he apparently indeed had minor VO and acting roles. But I'd expect more SIGCOV, especially in the LA market in that time period, out of the Times and Herald Examiner. I don't have it. Delete. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving image formats

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

Contested PROD. My original rationale was: This is an essay based on original research, and cannot be rewritten into an an encyclopedic article. If someone wants to write an encyclopedic article on "Moving image formats" (which would be a WP:BCA, not a personal essay reflecting on the topic), this should be deleted and a new article written. There is nothing in the page history of this uncited personal reflection on moving image formats that is worth saving. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Technology. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, lacks context. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I'd say keep a stub, but given this would be a broad-concept article it would probably not be helpful that way. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sýn (media corporation)

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

Fails WP:NORG. The first reference cites Sýn's website, the second one its own media outlet Vísir.is. All publications I found either contain trivial info or are news about acquisitions or sales of the company's assets. In brief, the company does not meet WP:ORGCRITE and is not inherently notable, according to the same guideline. Ur frnd (talk) 00:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Companies, Internet, and Iceland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pretty straightforward WP:NCORP fail. BD2412 T 02:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It would be surprising, and a rather serious indictment of our current NCORP practice, if Iceland's sole private TV news provider failed to clear the bar. Here is an informative book passage about the company. Here is a chapter providing substantial information on the company in the context of a general analysis of the Icelandic media system. (Both of the foregoing are in edited volumes published by the University of Gothenburg.) Competing outlets such as RÚV, MBL, and Viðskiptablaðið all have a considerable amount of reporting about the company, much of which seems quite substantial to me. (I will refrain, however, from attempting to anticipate whether the mere circumstance of actual independence from the article subject will be deemed sufficient for any of those articles to meet the circular requirements of WP:ORGIND.) -- Visviva (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be that subsidiaries are notable while the parent Sýn is not (WP:INHERITORG). But the sources you provided are indeed something, let's see what other editors have to say. Ur frnd (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry if this sounds harsh but if search for sources for Iceland's largest mass media company failed to actually find sources then there was something seriously wrong with that search and it should be redone. Alvaldi (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, but I would rather see comments demostrating how the organization is notable than criticizing my nomination per se. Ur frnd (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Octonauts DVD releases

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

Reason MTAFOfficial (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC) All "sources" are just storefront listings. Nothing shows why the releases of this particular show are articleworthy compared to any other series[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic of this page is Octonauts, so it's notable and the verification appears adequate. It could be merged back into the main series page, but looking at the size it's not clear that would be a better presentation of this data. Jclemens (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morrisson (singer)

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

Musician and radio DJ. The claims of notability are a #15 Hot Dance Airplay song in 2006, and one of his songs playing at a club scene in an episode of a NBC TV show. Neither of these meet WP:NMUSIC. All content edits are by two accounts that never edited anything else on Wikipedia (except a deleted draft article on his band). One reference is to the charts for the #15 hit, the other is vague and to a magazine that mentions a lot of musicians in passing. Here2rewrite (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Radio, Television, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tum Jo Miley

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

Done a quick google search. Can't establish notability. Fails GNG. No sources. Wikibear47 (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hum TV's relevant list of programming. Muneebll (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kızım Nerede?

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

Tagged uncited for over a decade and Turkish article also uncited. There must be thousands of Turkish TV series as they generally run for only a few months or a year or two. I searched but could not see how this is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 in Philippine television

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

Too soon for the article. also non-cited content and empty tables. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 12:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 12:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to retain this because the year 2025 is approaching. Thank you Glenn23-408649 (talk) 14:16, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

we have the draft: Draft:2025 in Philippine television existed that is pending as of now. the draft article will be moved back to the main article once the 2025 approaches by mid-late december. Ayamano2021 (talk) 11:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and revert Ayamano2021 edit of turning the said article to a redirect. To quote WP:TOOSOON -- "Inclusion criteria might be met through an individual meeting the "general notability guideline" and their having significant coverage in 'reliable sources'". Prior to the article being transformed to a redirect, there were already WP:RS covering TV shows that will debut in January (which is in 2025). That alone passes the bar. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article was mistakenly turned into a Redirect while this discussion was still ongoing. Please do not disrupt this AFD. If you want this article to be converted to a Redirect, make that argument here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Tokushima Broadcasting

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Planned TV station that never existed. North8000 (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unbuilt TV stations rarely merit articles. If this were in the US and an unbuilt construction permit, it would be a bright-line deletion. An article on TV in Tokushima Prefecture might merit a sentence or two on this station being proposed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Hill

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

No signifigant coverage in any reliable and secondary sources. There are only sources briefly mentioning awards that Hill has been nominated for. No biographical details. Sebbog13 (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Visual arts. Sebbog13 (talk) 01:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets 4C of WP:CREATIVE "won significant critical attention" as an Oscar nominee, for his notable work on Top Gun: Maverick, starring Tom Cruise. He was also nominated for a BAFTA Award for Top Gun: Maverick and a Primetime Emmy Award for his work on Stranger Things. He definitely has reliable and secondary sources on him [1]. His oscar nomination sources [2][3][4][5]. His emmy nomination sources [6]. There are biographical details where he leads Method Studios along with two other people [7][8]. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per the information and links provided above by User:MoviesandTelevisionFan. — Maile (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless I'm mistaken an Oscar nominee attains notability. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was told to AfD it on the discord. - Sebbog13 (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were told? Does that mean you don't really want it deleted? Geschichte (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Sport Serie A

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Zero references other than their own website. North8000 (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't even verify that this was ever a TV Channel. The 'source' provided is just the Serie A section of the Sky website. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sky Italia#Sky Sport and Sky Calcio – Is also a valid WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and marge but to Sky Sport (Italy), sorry Svartner but I feel my suggestion would be a better redirect target. @GiantSnowman: redirect?? Cheap?? Govvy (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Spiderone It was rebranded to Sky sport calcio, regards, Govvy (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'm not opposed to redirecting to your suggestion. Svartner (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, happy with a redirect! Giant Snowman 19:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Govvy Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Félix de Bedout

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

BLP of a television personality, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for television personalities. No sigcov, no evidence of notability, insufficient sourcing since its creation. Jinnllee90 (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find stories about this person changing networks. What's used in the article isn't enough to show RS, nor are the sources in the ES wiki article, only profile pages on what appear to be broadcast network websites. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Colombia. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CU note nominator blocked as a checkuser confirmed sock.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Santa (2005 film)

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

In my WP:BEFORE I failed to find anything of substance, in reliable sources, to meet WP:NFILM. All I could find was run-of-the-mill database entries and newspaper TV listings. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, and United States of America. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: hardly anything for this version, most sources mention the Jack Black film of the same name. This is about all I could find [9] and it's hardly enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll take a look - offhand the article is a bit confusing, considering that they talk about it like it's a movie and a TV show. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Netural comment (for now) This seems to actually be an hour-long TV special rather than a film (note the Clay Aiken appearance likely tied into his Idol run at the time). Nate • (chatter) 17:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it's a reality show where celebrities give children stuff, from what I can see. So it's not a movie. I'm also uncertain if the "season 2" is actually a sequel or if it's an unrelated show with the same idea. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this was heavily tied into the Operation Santa Claus initiative, so we could probably do a selective merge into that article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Operation Santa Claus. There wasn't really much fanfare about this show. It was announced along with the CD, but no one really reported on it beyond announcements that it would air. There are no reviews and no info about how it fared in ratings, nor any info about the production process, all of which would be needed for it to pass the notability guidelines for TV shows. I've done some selective merging of the info into the main article for OSC since the children were chosen from the initiative and a related CD was sold at the USPS. As far as the 2006 version goes, I can't find any mention of this beyond air times and a handful of celebrity names. There's no confirmation that it was a sequel or even that it was related to OSC. The summary at IMDb mentions the USPS (but not OSC), but that's not a RS. It's most likely related, but I'm leery about adding it without at least some mention somewhere that would be seen as reliable on Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Sab Ajeeb Se Hain

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

Lacks independent bylined coverage or critical reviews in reliable secondary sources. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non notable sitcom. Before search did not bring any useful reviews, only episodes from YouTube and Dailymotion which are not what is needed to prove notability. Mekomo (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSERIES. Can't establish notability. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Capital TV (Pakistan)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV as no article addresses the topic directly and in detail. Gheus (talk) 06:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the available sources are primary, and the subject doesn't seem notable per WP:GNG. There's little to no in-depth coverage in independent and reliable sources. The only cited source in the article offers just trivial mentions—just not enough! ZyphorianNexus (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apna Channel

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

The official website is defunct. Fails WP:SIGCOV as no article addresses the topic directly and in detail. Gheus (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails SIGCOV and GNG Wikibear47 (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaj Entertainment

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article has a notability tag since 2015, still no coverage found. WP:ATD: redirect to Business Recorder or Aaj News. Gheus (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aaj News since both are in broadcasting. The Aaj Entertainment fails WP:GNG to remain as a standalone article. Mekomo (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aaj News: Redirect as per WP:ATD. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pond Life (Doctor Who)

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

Fails WP:NTVEP all sources are primary and my before turned up nothing usable Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Who series 7. That article already has a summary of the plot, and any relevant production and reception information should be added over there; I've expanded a little here, but there's not much. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge any relevant content to the series 7 page. As I said elsewhere, this borderline fails WP:NTV. It's a bit better with the expanded content, but doesn't necessarily appear to be significant enough that it necessitates its own article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge per TheDoctorWho. Better covered as part of a wider subject given the lack of coverage on the subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge - as suggested above. The shorts were essentially a promotional piece for Series 7, so that is where they should be covered. Dunarc (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge per TheDoctorWho, does not stand on its own. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket to Heaven (Thai TV series)

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

Non-notable TV series. No independent sources and too soon. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Pretty much too soon, as it was only just announced, so there won't be any third-party coverage beyond that repeating the announcement. Likely to generate plenty once it's released though. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Industry characters

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

A contested redirect, an unreferenced list, and technically too old to draftify. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, United Kingdom, and United States of America. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 14:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim if needed. 1) The topic is Industry (TV series) so notability is established. 2) as a SIZE OR WP:SS split of a notable topic, primary sources are just fine for meeting V and NPOV policies. 3) LISTN is satisfied by WP:CSC point 2, every entry is non-notable. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable split from Industry (TV series). Sourcing is terrible (this is pretty common across Category:Lists of television characters in my experience), but that doesn't mean the topic isn't notable or shouldn't be covered in a standalone article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Sport MotoGP

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Not only are there no GNG sources, it really doesn't any sources. Two are their own website and the other is some type of program listing. Tagged by others since Sept 2024. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Motorsport, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sky Sports is a pretty significant television broadcaster. There has to be enough to support this. Sandcat555 (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Sport Uno

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Not only are there no GNG sources, it really doesn't any sources. One is their own website and the others are some type of listing. (It's not broadcast television channel.) Tagged by others for sourcing issues since march North8000 (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sky Italia.4meter4 (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Sport Arena

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Not only are there no GNG sources, it really doesn't any sources. One is their own website and the other are some type of listing. It's not a television stattion. It appears that it is some type of content which is available for streaming. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sports, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cristo Foufas

AfDs for this article:

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

Article deleted in 2010, failed PROD in 2021. Sources exist, as added in that PROD of 2021, but article is not nearly notable enough for inclusion. LR.127 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and United Kingdom. LR.127 (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Probably have enough for a basic article. This Independent article is the best [10], then some coverage [11] and [12]. Seems to be well-known to the viewing public. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per oaktree b. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 17:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Prentiss

AfDs for this article:

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

Prentiss is a non-lead character in a TV show, and fails WP:NFICTION, also cross-checking with WP:NBOOK and WP:NFILMCHAR. The most notable aspect of this character (outside of the show narrative itself) is that the actress who portrays the character left the show twice and returned twice. TiggerJay (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TiggerJay (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that this is the 2nd nom, and the prior result was a merge, and it appears that @User:DocZach brought this article back to life from draft space of their own accord without resolving the concerns originally brought up at the prior AfD. TiggerJay (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we encourage people to do precisely that, especially when they're rewritten the article in question. Jclemens (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed such concerns below. DocZach (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, the basis of my nom had nothing to do with the prior AfD, and thus the "rewrite" is an irrelevant factor, because the principle concerned that came to my attention about this article exists in the current version. It just so happens that the question of this fictional character has come up previously, and the concerns last year happen to be the same concerns that I currently have with the current version. Rather the concern should be if an article survived a AfD/Prod/CSD and then it was hastily brought up again for the same reason. However in this case, it did not survive the first action, and there is clear contention on this relisting. TiggerJay (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware of the effort the restorer spent in improving the article, which means you know, or should know of, the timing involved. To neither mention the currency of the rewrite nor the rewrite itself in your follow up is still unreasonably inconsiderate. Not properly acknowledging such things evokes memories of bad old days' BATTLEGROUND behavior; let's not go there. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for recognizing that. I spent a lot of time researching about this character and writing this article. I have just spent the last few hours revising the article to add more sources and information, and please let me know if you think it looks better now. DocZach (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would agree that many edits (over 17k bytes) DocZach has made which has increased the overall article size, and breadth of coverage. Even an additional 6k since this AfD was raised. Adding plenty of source material to flesh out the various sections that were added. However, size/length has never been the qualifier for inclusion -- hence why many STUBs are acceptable. Rather the question is that beyond simply being that Prentiss appears to be a well written character (ie has a specific personality, with a background, and an evolving role), couldn't be said about anyother main character of a popular TV show? For example, when you look at the main cast of the even longer running NCIS (TV series) with ~130 more episodes, of their NCIS (TV series) § Cast and characters you can see that characters with similar lengths of appearances are simply redirects to a "List Of..." page. Certainly you could fill a page with "verifiable facts" about each character, but that isn't the criteria for having a dedicated article -- that is what fandom and IMDB are for. The majority of things which seem to have received WP:SECONDARY coverage have been far more about Brewster (thus Prentiss tangentially) - for example, the impact of choosing the go grey instead of dying her hair or that she left the show so she could "return to her comedic and sitcom roots". That is real life choices of the actress impacting the character that needed to be accommodated. What might make the noteworthiness is the other way around; if the show creators wanted to make a big statement to the industry by specifically directing the actress to go gray, that then had a domino effect on the industry. Otherwise it's just a random factoid. TiggerJay (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With this newer rendition of the article being up for only a few days, I have made significant contributions and devoted a lot of effort to research and writing in relation to this article. After reviewing the relative policies, it is clear that Emily Prentiss, the character HERSELF, meets both WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION, and deleting the article or restoring it to a simple redirect is a very ignorant and foolish idea, especially when this article is being continuously improved day-by-day.

Emily Prentiss is a key figure in Criminal Minds, especially Season 12 and onward, when she becomes Unit Chief and later Section Chief, cementing her as one of the most important characters in the show’s 17-season run. She has been in all but three of the seasons, and has been brought back two times by fan demand. Her storylines—like her faked death to evade Ian Doyle and her leadership during high-stakes cases—are not just central to the series but have also been widely discussed in reliable secondary sources. Outlets like ScreenRant, Collider, and TVLine have provided in-depth analysis of her character, her role in the show, and her significance in cultural discussions. Many of these sources explore how Prentiss’s narrative and Paget Brewster’s portrayal have resonated with audiences and contributed to broader conversations, such as those about representation and aging in Hollywood.

The article has expanded significantly in recent weeks (as the proposer for deletion acknowledges), with thousands of bytes of new content added to deepen its coverage of her backstory, personality, storylines, and reception. This growth reflects my effort to continue developing this article to surpass the minimum requirements set by Wikipedia for an article like this. Removing it now would dismiss that progress and deny room for future improvements. Articles are not expected to be perfect from the outset, but this one has already demonstrated substantial progress, and its continued development would benefit readers and contributors alike.

The individuals suggesting we restore this article to a redirect have suggested that Prentiss’s article isn’t warranted because some characters from other shows, like NCIS, are treated as redirects. Firstly, I find this hypocritical because those same individuals are the ones complaining about me using the David Rossi article and the failure of deleting his article as one of the justifications for keeping Emily's article. As explained in the WP:OTHERSTUFF policy that those same individuals cited, Wikipedia evaluates articles individually, based on the notability of the subject and the availability of independent secondary coverage. However, the survival of the deletion on David Rossi's article is allowed to be used as an argument per an exception in that policy regarding outcomes of deletion proposals on related articles. And, if we are going to do comparisons to characters of other shows, I'd like to point to Grey’s Anatomy, where over a dozen characters—including multiple minor characters who are less central to the show and less notable than Prentiss—have their own articles. If those characters meet notability requirements, there is no valid reason why Emily Prentiss, a lead character who drives major storylines, should not. If they do not meet the notability requirements, then I struggle to understand the proposer's specific decision to delete this article rather than focus on other character articles that are obviously less notable, less covered, and less detailed. However, as I said before, the existence of other articles is not an argument for the existence of this article. I am just writing this paragraph to emphasize the hypocrisy and inconsistencies in the opposition's argumentation.

The real-world impact of Prentiss’s character further underscores her notability. Fan demand played a key role in Paget Brewster’s return to the series after her departure, highlighting the character’s importance to viewers. Additionally, Brewster’s decision to embrace her natural gray hair, which was written into the character, sparked cultural conversations about aging and beauty standards. These discussions were covered by major outlets like TODAY and E! Online, showing that Prentiss’s relevance extends far beyond the show.

Deleting this article would go against Wikipedia’s principles of being an open and comprehensive encyclopedia. Emily Prentiss is clearly notable under both WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION, and the article’s ongoing development should not be hindered by what appears to be an ignorant and abrupt attempt to discard it. Removing it now would erase a valuable resource and dismiss the ongoing effort to improve articles relating to Criminal Minds. DocZach (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG is met, and even without the VALNET sources, which are just fine in this case. This is a particularly inconsiderate nomination in that the character article has been materially expanded and sources added within the last day or two. Of all the things that need cleaning up in Wikipedia, the notability of contemporary TV show characters is probably one of the least problematic areas. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Redirect - The article is still nothing but detailed plot summary, without any kind of reception or analysis, and the added sources that are not primary or just episode summaries are not really significant coverage on the character. Many, in fact, are just news bits about the actress that portrayed her joining/leaving/returning to the show, rather than any kind of discussion on the actual fictional character that this article is about. Searches really are not bringing much up that is about the character, rather than the actress, that goes beyond summarizing plots. I have no problem if the current article was returned to draft space to be further developed, but its current state was not ready to be moved back to the main space. Rorshacma (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If an article can be improved, then you should propose ways to improve it instead of deleting it because of a reason that doesn't even match the original proposer's logic behind deleting this article. He is arguing about a lack of notability, and you are arguing about the way this article is written. Yes, this article can be improved. No, deleting or redirecting an article is not the solution to issues that can easily be fixed in an article. DocZach (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The premise for this deletion nomination is false. Emily Prentiss is a prominent lead character in the show, and her character has gotten even more notability over the past year due to recent events she has experienced. She is the Section Chief (lead) of the BAU, and if David Rossi is going to have his own article (who is notably less present in the series than Emily Prentiss), then Emily most certainly meets the criteria to have her own as well. I will attach just a few examples of her being mentioned by reliable sources.

^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]

DocZach (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument - there could very well be reason for David Rossi to also not have an independent article, but that is not what is under discussion here. The sources listed here, like the ones in the article, are either short announcements about the actress leaving/returning to the show, which are not significant coverage of the fictional character at all, or plot summaries that are largely from content farms. How important a character is within the show has no bearing on passing the WP:GNG or whether or not a independent article is appropriate or not. Rorshacma (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the part of the policy that explicitly states, in relation to references to past failed deletions with similar reasoning, "this can be a strong argument that should NOT be discounted because of a MISCONCEPTION that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." DocZach (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARGUMENT FOR WHY THE ARTICLE SHOULD REMAIN

The Emily Prentiss article satisfies WP:GNG, WP:NFIC, and WP:NFILMCHAR for fictional characters. This article and recent improvements to it address prior concerns from last year's AfD, and it demonstrates the character's significance both inside and outside of the show, Criminal Minds.

----

A) Significant Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources

The article includes multiple secondary sources that provide coverage of Emily Prentiss beyond plot summaries. Examples include:

Looper and Collider: Discuss her leadership roles, character development, and importance to the show’s dynamics.
ScreenRant and The List: Analyze pivotal moments in her story, such as faking her death and her return to the team.
E! Online and TODAY.com: Highlight how her character is discussed in broader cultural contexts, such as Paget Brewster’s decision to embrace her gray hair, which has been woven into the show.
CNN and Yahoo: Covers on her leaving and returning on the show multiple times.

These sources go beyond simple mentions and delve into how Prentiss has been portrayed, her role in the show, and her impact on the series and viewers. I have already attached the references to both the article and this page.

----

B) Prominence as a Lead Character

Leadership Roles: Prentiss becomes Unit Chief in Season 12 and later Section Chief, making her one of the show’s most significant characters. She has been in the series since Season 2, and has been a main character throughout most of it.
Impact on the Series: Prentiss's arc includes some of the show’s most dramatic and memorable moments (e.g., her undercover mission, faking her death, and leading the BAU). These storylines, especially her faked death, have all been covered by reliable sources numerous times.

----

C) Reception and Real-World Discussion

Fan Demand: Her return to the show was largely driven by public outcry, which indicates her importance to the audience.
Brewster Herself: Discussions about representation in media, particularly Brewster’s portrayal and refusal to adhere to Hollywood norms, tie directly to her character’s ongoing relevance.

This kind of real-world analysis satisfies WP:NFIC and distinguishes Emily Prentiss from lesser-known characters who belong in a list or merged article.

----

D) RESPONDING TO ORIGINAL DELETION ARGUMENTS

Claim 1: “Most sources are primary”

This is no longer accurate. The article now cites numerous independent, secondary sources, including:

Analytical articles (Looper, Collider, ScreenRant).
Coverage from established entertainment outlets (E! Online, TODAY.com, CNN, Yahoo).
Reviews and discussions of key storylines involving Prentiss.

These sources show significant coverage of Emily Prentiss specifically, not just the show or Paget Brewster.

----

Claim 2: “A Google search doesn’t prove individual notability”

Recent searches reveal ample sources discussing Emily Prentiss’s character arc, leadership role, and real-world impact. The expanded article now demonstrates this with concrete examples and citations, countering this claim.

----

Claim 3: “Not worth a standalone article”

Emily Prentiss is one of the most prominent characters in Criminal Minds. Articles for similar characters, such as David Rossi (which is the other character of the series that has an article), have been maintained despite less coverage and screen presence. Prentiss’s depth, narrative significance, and real-world attention make her more than worthy of her own article.

----

Claim 4: “Should redirect to a list of characters”

Merging Emily Prentiss into a list would strip away the depth of analysis she receives in her standalone article. Her character arc and real-world significance cannot be adequately covered in a brief summary. The current article structure allows for a more nuanced exploration of her impact.

----

The article meets GNG by demonstrating significant independent coverage.
It incorporates real-world analysis, development, and reception, addressing prior critiques of being overly plot-focused.
The character is central to Criminal Minds and its revival, with a clear legacy and cultural relevance.
The rewritten article addresses all prior concerns and stands as a notable, well-sourced piece.

Deleting or merging this article would undermine the depth of coverage for one of the most significant characters in Criminal Minds. The current article satisfies all criteria for notability and has been improved significantly since the original deletion request. I am also continuing to improve it regularly, and would definitely appreciate help from others to do so. Deleting the article without any suggestion or discussion of improvement seems unproductive and antithetical to Wikipedia's policies and purpose.

----

DocZach (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Stating that a "premise is false" is meaningless without actual support, instead of simply claiming but it's true! However I welcome you to substantiate your claim that the "character has gotten even more notability over the past year." What independent, reliable sources to you have to support that claim that the character's notability has significantly changed in the past year? Simply reposting all of the references from the article is not helpful, as many of them establish Brewster (actress) as notable as her life events and acting career have evolved around this show and character, but Brewster's notability does not automatically transfer to the character she plays. Of the 14 source you provided, many of them were from 2016 and prior. Of the 4 that were published in 2024, two of them were from Screen Rant ("marginally reliable") and 1 from IMDB ("unreliable") and the Yahoo news one focused on the actress, not the character. (For clarification the reliability is based on WP:RSP.) TiggerJay (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RSPSS, ScreenRant is "considered reliable for entertainment-related topics." The "marginally reliable" attribute applies broadly because it is not recommended to use ScreenRant for "controversial statements related to living persons." DocZach (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how NBOOK applies to this article? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The individual who proposed this article for deletion was the one who brought up the policy "NBOOK." DocZach (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But yeah, NBOOK has no relevance, so I removed that from my statement. DocZach (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the original nom, NBOOK specifically listed as part of a broader "cross-check" for fictional characters, since there is no direct guidelines for fictional TV characters -- instead we have simply fiction, books and films... But to show comprehensive checking for anything else policy related that might apply for a fictional character, those places were also checked since people also desire to create articles about fictional characters from other works, and those guidelines can be helpful when a direct guideline does not exist. Instead we're basically left with WP:N and WP:NFICTION. TiggerJay (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me break down for you step by step the issues with these arguments:

To begin, Looper is unreliable. Screen Rant falls under Wikipedia:VALNET. CNN and Yahoo are just casting announcements, which are not relevant to the fictional character's notability (They would be important when covering the actress). Both CNN sources are just announcements of her casting return. The gray hair source discusses Prentiss's actress and her acceptance of her hair, rather than the character. If the character's hair was discussed, it'd be different, but this is specifically Paget's hair being discussed here. I can't access the Yahoo source, so a new link would be appreciated.
In-universe importance is not relevant to a subject's ability to get an article. This is included in nearly every fictional character guideline in the book. If these things are important, they need reliable sourcing showing that impact to back it up (None of which is illustrated in the sources provided)
Brewster's coverage is Brewster's coverage. Unless there is significant overlap between Prentiss and Brewster, such as an analysis article discussing how Brewster's performance greatly affected how Prentiss's character was formed, for instance, then maybe that could be viable, but all the sources provided are very clearly either about Prentiss or about Brewster, with only mentions about the other. Fan demand is relevant, but needs Wikipedia:SIGCOV to back it up. Additionally, that trivia is summarizable in a sentence or so, easily mergeable back to the character's list.
Most of your claims here I've already responded to (A Google Search one is a weird argument and I don't think it should've applied either way) but on the character list point, the current article has entirely plot information in it. This is summarizable at a list without much being lost, and many of the sources acknowledged at this AfD don't have enough coverage to build up substantial substance in the present one, since many of them are not about Prentiss and instead about Brewster, or fall under the scope of trivial coverage. I can go into a far deeper source analysis if you want clarification, of course.

Overall, there's a distinct lack of SIGCOV that hails from reliable sources, and the coverage doesn't really seem to exist that justifies the separation here. On the topic of Rossi, his AfD seemed to have a very inaccurate close; there was one Keep vote, and yet the AfD was closed as Keep despite two strong Merge arguments. Rossi should probably be rediscussed at a later date, since I don't believe he was discussed in-depth enough during his first AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised much of the article to address much of your guys' concerns. Again, I find the proposal to delete this entire article very inconsiderate when it can very easily be improved rather than deleted. DocZach (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort to improve the article, but the issue with the sources, as described throughout the AFD, is still there. Most of the sources are trivial coverage, and nearly the entirety of the sources being used in the new Reception section are about Paget Brewster, the actress, with very minimal discussion about the character. Announcements about Brewster leaving/returning to the cast or articles about Brewster not dying her hair, where the only actual coverage on the fictional character is a sentence or two saying nothing more than it being the character Brewster portrays is just not significant coverage or analysis of the fictional character of Emily Prentiss. One of the articles on her hair does not, as far I can see, even mention the character of Emily Prentiss, so trying to tie sources like that into analysis of the character is starting to drift in to WP:SYNTH territory. Rorshacma (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So your solution is to delete an article that you think has some issues instead of helping improve it first? DocZach (talk) 00:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Redirect. Rorshacma has summed up my thoughts quite nicely above, both in terms of source analysis and on this article's current status. This article is quite literally exactly the same as it was last time, and Jclemens's above showing of page history just shows minor text alterations and nothing more. Nothing has changed that would change the outcome of the last AfD, and the BEFOREs of several editors above have turned up nothing. This has no reason to be a separate article and is better off redirected like it was before. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does David Rossi have his own article when he is a less notable character than Emily Prentiss? DocZach (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, perhaps Rossi should also be up for an AfD... But just because Rossi exists does not mean that Prentiss should exist -- see WP:OTHERSTUFF. TiggerJay (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you are citing explicitly states:

"Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used. Yet a small number of debates do receive wide participation and result in a decision that is effectively final, until new evidence comes along. If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates."

The David Rossi article has already received a deletion proposal over a year ago as well for the same reason. The article survived.

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rossi DocZach (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To quote Rorshacma, "WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument - there could very well be reason for David Rossi to also not have an independent article, but that is not what is under discussion here." Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the part of the policy that explicitly states, "this can be a strong argument that should NOT be discounted because of a MISCONCEPTION that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or deletion debates." DocZach (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing a key part of that sentence: "If you reference such a past debate". While you have eventually mentioned the prior AfD for Rossi, that was not included in your initial statements regarding the character. You can use the Rossi article to discuss specific points, but the fact that the Rossi article exists is not a good argument. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not solely referencing the fact that the Rossi article exists. I am referencing the fact that there was a deletion attempt on the Rossi article for the SAME reason, and that deletion attempt failed. Under the policy you referenced, that's an appropriate argument. DocZach (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rossi honestly should undergo revaluation. His discussion was closed as Keep with only one detailed Keep and two detailed Merge votes, which doesn't seem to be a proper consensus, especially given the low discussion turnout of that AfD. Besides, similar characters being kept is nowhere precedent. Even though I slightly disagree with the outcome, Vislor Turlough was kept at AfD as a Doctor Who companion, yet other Doctor Who companions (Such as Katarina, Kamelion, and Dan Lewis) were merged into other articles despite similar arguments and backgrounds. Consensus for notability of a subject is very much on a case-by-case basis, and having articles of similar backgrounds does not instantly guarantee that the same argument applies to another subject. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I mentioned OTHERSTUFF, you hadn't mentioned the other deletion discussion. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts on the Rossi:

While Rossi did survive an AfD, as per WP:OTHERSTUFF, "caution should be used..." because most do not receive wide participation -- and that could be said of Rossi. His AfD received little attention, with only 5 other people !vote. But moreover with an even split 3/3 keep versus merge -- the decision that there was consensus is somewhat questionable.
Of the top four characters by number of appearances per IMDB (whereby Prentiss is 7th).[13] only half of them have an actual article, while two of them have redirects. Of those with redirects they still have over 100 more episodes each compares to Prentiss.
And looking at the current List of Criminal Minds characters the top two listings here as well are simply redirects. Those redirects were previously articles as well that were merged and deleted per GNG in 2023.
Interest in show and characters is falling significantly (WP:RECITISM), the page views for Criminal Minds alone has dropped off 50% and 70% for the characters of Reid, Prentiss, Jareau, Garcia and Rossi [14].

But all of that simply speaks to the dangers of introducing WP:WAX. It is a slippery slope to introduce the existence of other things (surviving AfD) as there are also other examples of other things were deleted with arguably more significance. This is really what the essay expresses, and instead the arguments should focus on why Prentiss (what the essay expresses as individual merit), not some of the common notability fallacies. TiggerJay (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I find it inconsistent and hypocritical that you are arguing against comparing articles while continuing to do just that. The argument that similar characters in other shows have been merged or redirected does not negate Emily Prentiss’s notability under WP:GNG or WP:NFICTION. Notability is determined on a case-by-case basis, and Prentiss clearly meets the criteria. She has been the subject of significant independent coverage in reliable sources such as ScreenRant, Collider, CNN, and TODAY, which analyze her pivotal role as Unit Chief and Section Chief, as well as her cultural impact and importance to the show. These sources go beyond plot summaries to discuss real-world factors like fan campaigns that brought Paget Brewster back to the series and the broader conversations about aging and representation sparked by the decision to integrate Brewster’s gray hair into the character. There's even articles about her romances within the show. These are not trivial mentions; they are substantial discussions about her relevance both within and beyond the show.

Wikipedia evaluates notability based on reliable secondary coverage, not arbitrary metrics like episode counts. Her role as a lead character in major story arcs and as the head of the BAU from Season 12 onward makes her far more central to the narrative than some characters who have been redirected. And potentially, articles for other Criminal Minds may also warrant creation, and I would not be opposed to such a decision.

Please read over WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Firstly, I reject the argument that declining page views signal reduced relevance. Secondly, notability is not temporary, and the character remains central to the currently airing Criminal Minds: Evolution. Interest naturally fluctuates, but revivals and major developments have historically reignited attention on Prentiss and the series. DocZach (talk) 04:19, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There have been many changes since the last AfD. There are many more secondary sources from established outlets (E! Online, TODAY.com, CNN, Yahoo), there has been more news coverage in relation to events on the series (faked death, gray hair, departures and returns, relationships, and changes in series structure). The article itself carries (and has the potential to carry much more) information that is valuable and useful to many readers, especially those who wish to learn about Emily Prentiss from Criminal Minds. Redirecting her character once again to the list of characters would result in an obnoxiously long description of her, and anything short of that would not do justice to the coverage, notability, and attention this character has received. DocZach (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I would agree that there have made "many changes" since the last AfD, and there have been more secondary sources added, that does not itself equate to the requirements of independently reliable sources which establishing notability. There is enough source to verify that this fictional character exists, and that most of what is presented in the article is verify that they did occur. You mention a character arc, but I don't seen any reliable sources (through independent research or those provided in the article) which go to any depth to talk about anything significant about a character arc. Instead most focus on "she use to be X and now she is Y" or trivial other mentions about why something has changed, or that she went from a reoccurring role to being a regular on the show due to "fan demand". Those are facts more about the actress and not the character who was basically beholden to the whims of real life, instead of the character imposing it on the real people. Those are great for the Brewster article. TiggerJay (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're misrepresenting the sources. Reliable, independent sources like ScreenRant, TODAY, and Collider do more than verify her existence—they analyze key aspects of her character, including her leadership as Unit Chief, her faked death arc, her multiple departures and re-appearances, her special appearances, her romances, and her role in sparking broader cultural conversations about representation and aging. Just because some of Paget Brewster’s decisions shaped some of the narrative doesn't erase the fact that the focus of these sources is also on Prentiss’s impact as a character and her resonance with audiences. These discussions are not trivial mentions—they demonstrate the significance of her character within and beyond the show, meeting both WP:GNG and WP:NFICTION. This article is 100% warranted on its own. DocZach (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable in fiction, plentiful sources. Not going to write a long-winded defense. It is what it is. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Criminal Minds characters#Current main characters. Appears to be mostly, if not entirely trivial coverage of the character. No objection to a split later if significant coverage can be found, but people here appear to be confused about the definition of WP:SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you think we should merge an entire article-length coverage with over 30 sources of a character into another article that already has a long list of characters? Did you even take the time to read any of the sources provided in this article? DocZach (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIGCOV requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that address the subject in detail, not just in passing. Sources like ScreenRant, Collider, and TODAY provide in-depth analysis of Emily Prentiss’s narrative arcs, including her faked death, her return as Unit Chief due to fan demand, her romances, her appearance, and her evolution as a leader in the show. This is precisely the type of sustained, independent coverage that WP:SIGCOV defines as significant, and it establishes Prentiss’s clear notability as a standalone topic, making a merge inappropriate. DocZach (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cogs Hollow

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 19:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 19:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stop motion films#Stop motion TV series per WP:ATD. It's a charming little children's program which is viewable on both YouTube and in the Internet Archive. Unfortunately it has not been written about other than in a few sales catalogues by the WHSmith company which sold the video. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every animatied series is notable, no matter where its produed or published originally. Lack of coverage in media doesnt mean its non-notable. What actually happened me thinks is that British Animation historians that were supposed to do their job failed to do so this series largely went under documented. Considering how resent this series is produced in early 1990s or late 1980ss. DoctorHver (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not at all Wikipedia policy based. Verifiable coverage is required for inclusion in Wikipedia, not a blanket "everything is notable" opinion. DonaldD23 talk to me 07:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stop motion films#Stop motion TV series. It is listed there.-Mushy Yank. 09:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Wilson (actor)

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

~~Delete~~ Redirect (see comment below) - 100+ episodes on Passions is good, but that is not sufficient for WP:NACTOR I don't think (it is not multiple roles) and I couldn't find any decent secondary sources with significant coverage to support the subject's notability. Also, the article has been unreferenced for a fair while. SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and South Africa. SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Passions per WP:ATD. Actor with only one notable role so fails WP:NACTOR. No significant coverage that I could find, so fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ah yes, I always forget about the redirect option. Good call @4meter4 - completely concur. SunloungerFrog (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serah (actress)

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

Delete - my WP:BEFORE turned up nothing of substance to support the subject's notability with regard to WP:NACTOR. Based on the scanty information in the article as it stands, the subject wasn't mentioned in any review I could find. That said, it is difficult to unearth any needles from the haystack of results that come from only being able to search for a one word name, and a search on the subject's full name (extracted from https://web.archive.org/web/20090602050929/http://www.serahs.net:80/) turned up just four hits. I would happily rescind my nomination if someone, e.g. the creating author, were able to support notability. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Film, Television, and India. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Before commenting (WP:BEFORE), I did a bit of research on the subject but didn't find much substantial information. Therefore, I agree with the nominator. Additionally, the article currently lacks any cited sources. Baqi:) (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NACTRESS/WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails SIGCOV. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find any references. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was able to find some sourcing, however I have two problems with the sourcing that would need to be resolved before this could be argued as a keep. The first thing is that it looks like the actress goes by "Sara" and "Sarah" as well as "Serah". Different outlets have different spellings. It's likely that this is the same person, but I would like someone to verify this beforehand just to be on the safe side. The second thing would be the sources themselves. It's been a while since I've laid hands on India related sources so I'm not super familiar with what's usable and what's not anymore. I believe that IndiaGlitz is usable, or it was when I was editing India related film articles years ago, but it would be good to verify. However at the same time, even if the sources are usable I'm a little leery about sourcing that tends to use different spellings of the actress's name. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my concerns about the sourcing - the big issue here is that India has a particularly big problem with people paying outlets to run news stories about them. Just within the time I was editing articles I saw previously fine sources become generally unusable because of this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like IndiaGlitz is still generally seen as reliable for movie related topics, so that's good. It's just the other two places to check out, then. If neither of those are reliable then IndiaGlitz by itself won't be enough to establish notability. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! There's a page on India related sourcing here. IndiaGlitz isn't reliable, nor are the other two. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is starting to WP:SNOW. To sum up my earlier comments, I found sourcing that I thought might be usable. None of it was. I wasn't able to find anything else, even taking the different name spellings into consideration. As far as I can tell, this was an actress who tried to make it big but just wasn't lucky enough. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Tornado

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

Not sure this one-off documentary from 2006 meets notability guidelines. Happy to be proven wrong but can't find it anywhere other than in directories and mirrors. jengod (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. jengod (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of environmental films per WP:ATD. On a side note, this was part of a series called Ultimate Disaster. It was second of four documentaries in this series.4meter4 (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ex Muslim Sahil

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

Only one citation in India Today is good, in my view. Looking at other, Dainik Bhaskar is just an Interview which doesn't contribute to Notability. Rest 2, one of Delhi Magazine and another of TheSportsGrail are not enough to prove Notability. TheChronikler7 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Islam, and India. TheChronikler7 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails to meet WP:GNG as no WP:SIGCOV sources were found. While the India Today article provides some information about this YouTuber, it is insufficient to justify a stand-alone article. Multiple in-depth articles from independent, reliable sources are required. At present, the subject does not meet notability guidlines. GrabUp - Talk 18:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs 1, 2, and 5 appear to be non-trivial independent RS'es. Above !voter misstates the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: The 2nd source, Delhi-Magazine, is an interview filled with quotes from the subject. I really don’t understand how one can label this source as independent and also state above voter misstates when labeling an interview as independent. Regarding the 3rd source, The SportsGrail, I really don’t think it’s a reliable source; it looks more like a blog. GrabUp - Talk 02:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An interview that is editorially overseen by a reputable source is sufficiently independent. Wikipedia's trend in the other direction--to deprecate all interviews--is wrong and I reject it. Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:INTERVIEW, interviews are WP:PRIMARY sources and do not count towards notability because they consist only of the subject’s statements. There is nothing in the article written by an editorial team—just sayings or quotes. Additionally, the article cites a Hindi interview by Dainik Bhaskar, which Delhi Magazine merely quoted, with no editorial input from Delhi Magazine. GrabUp - Talk 03:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said I disagree with the cited essay. Regardless there remain two sources, so GNG is met even if INTERVIEWS were a guideline or policy, which it's not. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By the simple fact of being a Muslim against Islam you can maintain and improve. I added several important sources. Jinnllee90 (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC) strike sock-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the analysis by Jclemens.4meter4 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article includes a source from NewAgeIslam.com, which does not seem particularly reliable. It is authored by a staff reporter rather than a credible or identifiable individual. Another source from India Today appears more trustworthy and credible. Additionally, the article references some interviews, which qualify as primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) but lack sufficient corroboration. Beyond these, no other highly reliable sources are present. Baqi:) (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY. The article has been significantly improved since the nomination, I can see more RS'es that are sufficient to warrant a standalone article. HistoryofAryavart (talk) 19:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is an RS? Taabii (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

chatbot-generated post

- Sufficient Reliable Sources (RS) and Notability

I support keeping the article about Ex-Muslim Sahil as it meets the WP:NOTABILITY criteria. The article has been significantly improved, with the inclusion of multiple reliable sources (RS), making it a viable candidate for a standalone Wikipedia entry.

1. Multiple Reliable Sources: The references, such as those from India Today, Times of India, and other independent media sources (including Ref 1, 2, and 5), provide substantial coverage of Sahil's contributions and presence in media debates, specifically in relation to his views on Islam. These sources fulfill the General Notability Guideline (GNG), showing significant attention from independent entities.

2. Media Appearances and Coverage: As seen in the HW News article, Sahil has appeared on major Indian news platforms, such as News Nation, discussing his transition from Islam and critical views of religious practices. His role in such public debates adds to his notability and supports the presence of coverage beyond personal social media channels.

3. Improvement and Editorial Oversight: The article's significant improvement, with better coverage and more authoritative sources, showcases its merit for a standalone article. Per HistoryofAryavart, the inclusion of these diverse sources adds credibility to the article’s claim of notability.

4. Social Media Influence: Sahil's presence in media debates and on YouTube further solidifies his influence, demonstrating his role in shaping conversations about religion. The sources cited, including news outlets like India Today and The Times of India, are crucial in establishing his media presence and influence.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitush Puttar (talk • contribs)

- We want to keep the discussion among humans, and this preceding post looks like it was written by AI/language model. Geschichte (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:INTERVIEW, interviews are considered WP:PRIMARY sources and do not independently establish notability. Article also does not meet the notability criteria (WP:BIO or WP:NOTABILITY), as most sources cited are either unreliable or fail to provide significant, independent coverage

- Cerium4B • Talk? • 13:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

chatbot-generated post

~~Keep~~striking as each commenter gets only one bolded not-a-vote. - I respectfully disagree with the "Delete" vote. While it's acknowledged that interviews can be considered primary sources, the outlets in question—such as India Today, HW News, and Times of India—are reputable, editorially supervised media organizations, which makes their coverage of Sahil's views valid and significant for establishing notability. These sources provide in-depth analysis of his public role and contributions to debates on religion, particularly his criticisms of Islam. Moreover, the article has been significantly improved since the nomination, incorporating multiple reliable and independent sources that provide substantial coverage of Sahil’s influence in public discussions. This expanded coverage, coupled with his media presence, fulfills the General Notability Guideline (GNG) by showing that the subject has received significant attention beyond self-promotion or social media. Therefore, I believe the article meets the notability criteria and should be kept. The combination of editorial oversight in the sources and the expanded media coverage makes this subject notable and worthy of a standalone Wikipedia entry.

@আকাশ নাথ সরকার:, @ExclusiveEditor:, @Saurmandal:, @Mr. Bishnupada Roy:, @Bharatiya: what you people like to say regarding this ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitush Puttar (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this because, as has been pointed out, one of the keep commenters is using AI to generate their comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serie A broadcasters

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability of this topic has not changed since the last AFD 6-7 months ago. It still falls foul of WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. I would support WP:SALTing this to prevent another re-creation. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Lists, and Italy. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not deemed to have standalone notability here (straight lift from itwiki which can set their own inclusion standards) and already deleted recently only to re-appear due to the page title being 'freed'. Crowsus (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it's important to note that it's not a direct recreation. There was a request for speedy deletion which was denied by Asilvering saying decline WP:G4, text greatly expanded from deleted version, no longer just a list, would need new discussion. Therefore the recreation isn't due to the page title being 'freed', but rather the creator would seem to think the expansion is enough for it to be notable enough to stand currently (also see what Claudio Fernag wrote on the talk page: This page should not be speedily deleted because the article is no substantially identical to the deleted version. The article is no longer just a list of broadcasters like when it was deleted, a context has been added that gives it notability, and verifiable and reliable sources were also included. The same happened with the article List of La Liga broadcasters, which at first was just a table with a list of broadcasters. It was nominated for deletion, more information was added to give it more notability and it was finally kept). --SuperJew (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Fair enough, but to be fair I couldn't see the original version for comparison. Crowsus (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT I also agree with nomination, I feel this is not the right type of material we should be having on wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: but rename to "Serie A in media", "Serie A broadcasting", "Serie A on television" or similar, not opposed to Draftify until quality concerns are met. Strongly opposed to salting. The article is not in a great state and is clearly based on / inspired by the it:wiki article which is IMO in need of some editing to trim it down. Nonetheless, the notability is clearly there, and this should be the "expansion/detailed article" corresponding to the TV rights section of the Serie A article. There is repeated coverage of TV rights negotiations, impacts on viewers and commentary on current status of TV rights in the main Italian newspapers of record (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...). There is more specialized work to analyze the landscape in niche publications / sources (which should naturally be reviewed to ensure they pass RS), such as 6, 7 (also independently published as a book, which may be better for referencing), 8, 9, 10 (appears to be a very good source, published by Taylor & Francis), 11... Research papers on this topic also exist, however I don't know if they meet our quality requirements: 12 and 13 published when Serie A TV rights were being renewed in 2005, 14, 15, 16... As well as theses (again, to check if RS is met): 17, 18. Shazback (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep am I missing something? This isn't the same article, and it seems to clearly pass WP:GNG with those Italian language articles above. We don't gatekeep if something is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:NOTTVGUIDE clearly does not apply here, which is for upcoming shows on specific networks. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't look like WP:SUSTAINED coverage to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources already in the article that span 20 years of coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 20:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be sufficient for WP:SUSTAINED? In 1995, half-page on page 4 of La Stampa regarding the TV rights sales of Serie A and B La Stampa 31 Oct. 1995 p.4, 2010 editorial article and analysis in La Repubblica on how TV rights sales affect the league to optimize commercial revenues La Repubblica 3 Mar. 2010 online, unknown if published... See the links above in addition... What type of sources would satisfy this aspect of the notability guideline? Shazback (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to GiantSnowman, IgnatiusofLondon, TimothyBlue, SpacedFarmer as they participated in the previous AfD. Shazback (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Shazback:, just so you're aware, SpacedFarmer is topic banned from AfD. Conyo14 (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article appears impressive, but is very poorly written and sourcing is inadequate to show notability of this topic. Giant Snowman 21:59, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Poor writing should be improved, not deleted. Regarding the sourcing, can you expand as two editors above have explained in detail how there is enough sourcing. --SuperJew (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:21, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Serie A#Television rights – No need for a fork, as decided in similar AfD in the past. If there is relevant content, simply add it to this section. Svartner (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article can be improved, it is notable enough as shown by editors above and shouldn't be deleted. Summarising and merging is a possible alternative, though it seems to me that there is enough content for a standalone page. --SuperJew (talk) 07:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding: (1) the extant state of sourcing; and (2) if renaming as an alternative to deletion would be suitable; would be helpful in ascertaining a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but this still needs a lot of rework. Looking over the list, I don't see it working as a rename and it wouldn't work as a redirect. Plus, SportingFlyer gave some good sources. Conyo14 (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Netflix exclusive international distribution programming

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

By their own admission, the pages here do NOT list Netflix programming, merely content that it has a licence for in specific territories. In the same way that we would not list programming created by, say, Disney on a list of programming on an international channel that it has exclusive rights for in that territory, say BBC, we should not be listing it here. WP:NOTDIRECTORY; WP:NOTTVGUIDE. --wooden superman 14:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. --wooden superman 14:52, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

--wooden superman 14:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPLITLIST applies and WP:NLIST says: "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability."; clearly the case here. (and I'm sorry but the scope, range and detail of Netflix's distribution has been the subject of coverage as a set, making the list notable anyway.... Start with World Cinema On Demand: Global Film Cultures in the Era of Online Distribution. (2022) Bloomsbury Publishing, p. 200; and Baker, D., Balanzategui, J., Sandars, D. (2023). Netflix, Dark Fantastic Genres and Intergenerational Viewing: Family Watch Together TV. Taylor & Francis (passim).., -Mushy Yank. 19:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is plainly a WP:NOTDIR violation and much better handled with categories rather than a page the average reader is never going to get near, or if they do, fail to understand what the list describes outside 'things on Netflix' as the introduction is badly explained and obtuse. Nate • (chatter) 19:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that categories are also inappropriate as it is not WP:DEFINING for content that Netflix does not produce itself. --wooden superman 20:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Mushy Yank. 𝙹𝚒𝚢𝚊𝚗 忌炎 (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔) 22:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Zahed

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails our notability criteria – doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. Ratekreel (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Bangladesh. Ratekreel (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources 1 and 7 are RS and are about this individual and some of their handy work, I think it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Reference no. 1 and 7 are fine. Baqi:) (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Weak, but the subject has received moderate coverage which is sufficient to support a stand-alone entry per WP:BARE. Also, the article is WP:POORLY.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Ogola

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 12#Brian Ogola. Article was BLARed in 2019 because it was "too outdated" (according to the editor who redirected it). CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Kenya. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe keep. I do think there is a credible claim to his passing WP:NACTOR for multiple notable roles. From looking at his IMDB he actually has some lead roles in content available on Netflix (for example https://nairobiwire.com/2020/10/meet-poacher-actor-brian-ogola.html ). The trouble with African media is the press is often ridiculous in its puffery so finding usable sources is often challenging because many of the newspapers get discredited at AFD for being over the top promotional. Based on his work, I say he passes an SNG, but based on sourcing I don't think we will be able to find WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Theatre. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete May pass SNG, but not GNG or SIGCOV. Link to the East African is broken, ands that could have been significant. African actors usually get less coverage than equally notable international counterparts, so I’m open to changing my mind if someone can provide one independent, reliable source.ANairobian (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - [15], [16], [17], [18] Ayokakesy2023 (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - lead actor in a soap opera in a moderately large country/market. Bearian (talk) 03:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alan White (DJ)

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

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a radio DJ and a spinoff article about his purported "television show" that may or may not ever have actually existed, with neither article properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for media personalities or their shows.
As always, broadcasters are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of WP:GNG-worthy third party coverage and analysis about them to establish that they've been externally validated as significant by somebody other than their own public relations agent -- but the BLP is "referenced" to one deadlinked unreliable source, one discogs.com directory entry about somebody else who isn't Alan White and one glancing namecheck of Alan White's existence in a newspaper obituary of somebody else who also isn't Alan White, absolutely none of which constitutes support for the notability of Alan White.
And meanwhile, the "television show" article is actually serving primarily as a coatrack for a largely reduplicated summary of the BLP, and not actually saying even one word at all about a "television show" until the very end, when it finally reveals that the "television show" that's posing as the article's nominal subject is "currently in pre-production" -- except it's said that since the day the article was created in 2011, and the article has never been updated since then with any evidence that the show ever actually started airing. And it's also based entirely on unreliable sources that aren't support for notability, with absolutely no GNG-worthy coverage about either Alan White or the "show" present there either.
Nothing stated in either article is "inherently" notable without GNG-worthy sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Television, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm getting a headache on this one trying to locate sources. Too many people named "Alan White", and several active in music.4meter4 (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, Connecticut, Georgia (U.S. state), Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The extreme lack of sourcing isn't helping... I tried looking for book reviews, no luck... For someone who seems to be so well-known, I'd expect some coverage in the Atlanta newspapers, which it doesn't seem to have either. Delete unless we can get some sort of sourcing in place that proves this is a notable individual. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking, Oaktree b, is that your opinion for both articles nominated here in this AFD? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I've only reviewed the one about the person, not the TV show, I can look at it in a bit. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Music & the Spoken Word broadcasts

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

Unreferenced list of unclear utility. This is an episode list of a radio and television music performance show in which the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (always the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, never anybody else) performs religious music along with an inspirational/religious sermon -- but this list just goes "broadcast number, date, recording location, title of sermon, production code, the end", with many entries not even containing all of those details, and right across the board even the recording location is always one or the other of two facilities in Salt Lake City, and never anywhere else.
There's no information at all that would actually be useful, such as the titles of any specific songs that were performed in the episode or a detailed summary of the sermon's theme — so there's effectively nothing of any serious substance said about any of the episodes to differentiate one from another. All of which renders it into a list of meaningless and trivial information, and it's also completely unreferenced for the purposes of actually verifying even what little information is here.
There's just no value to this without a lot more information about each episode and actual referencing for it. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Lists, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erez Da Drezner

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

I don't find any encyclopedic importance for this article, which telling about an anonymous deaf Israel person which haven't any significant things. He even haven't an article in the Hebrew Wikipedia. זור987 (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added standard information for an AfD nomination at the top TSventon (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meets the WP:NMODEL #1 and #2 criteria. The article describes visits of Da Drezner in two different hospitals in Ukraine, and describes his other deeds.

The article also was written in February 5, 2021 and has not been nominated for deletion until today. --DgwTalk 15:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can be nominated for deletion at any point that they are live on the main space. We see articles created in 2005 that are brought to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm on the fence a bit about this as the references are stocked full of non-reliable sources like Youtube and random blogspot domains. With that being said there's the kernel of a possibility that Da Dresner's work in Ukraine might reach the minimum bar for notability... except for WP:BLP1E. If his notability could be shown to extend to his TV work, other advocacy work or really anything other than one trip to Ukraine I might be persuaded. However the sources presently available in the article do not do this and I did not find anything really missing on a google search. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sixth place on a TV show and some charitable works after, but I don't really see notability. Sourcing is scant, i can only pull up articles about the trip to Ukraine. Oaktree b (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Brother (Israeli TV series) season 2#Housemates as an ATD, and a WP:TROUT for trying to argue non-notability in another project simply because an article for the subject hasn't been created on he.wiki. Also calling someone 'an anonymous...deaf person' is cruel and should never be a part of a rationale. Nate • (chatter) 20:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As things are going in ANI, there are enough evidences that this AfD has not been done in a good faith. I suggest to hold the Afd until archiving the discussion in ANI. If the article has to be deleted, please move it to User:Dorian Gray Wild/Erez Da Drezner until there is an additional activity of Da Drezner. DgwTalk 07:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you changing your !vote to draftifying the article? You understand that would mean deleting the article after the draft is taken? Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not change my vote. The user who made this AfD has been one-way banned from any articles which I edited. If in the end of this discussion, the admin will decide to delete this article, calculating my "keep" vote and the one-way-ban which the user got, I ask the admin to move the article to my user space instead of deleting it. DgwTalk 16:07, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, my misunderstanding. However it wouldn't be nrormal to cancel an in-progress AfD just because the filer is under an i-ban put in place after filing. Three people who are not the filer have already provided feedback that should be considered without prejudice. Simonm223 (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be enough sourcing to pass WP:GNG already cited in the article.4meter4 (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there appear to be some extenuating circumstances here, this discussion would benefit from input from previously uninvolved users.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Abdurrahman Farajajé

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

The only source that appears at all credible is the article "Whatever Way Love's Camel Takes: Remembering Baba Ibrahim Farajajé," which reads as more of a posthumous tribute than anything establishing notability, almost like an obituary (granted it was published a few years after his death, but the sentiment seems similar). All the other sources are either closely affiliated with the subject or do not appear to be generally reputable. An online search seems to return mostly the same things already being used as sources here, with an additional article on Google scholar that again appears to be a simple tribute. This individual certainly led an interesting life, but I see no evidence that they managed to attain notability. Anonymous 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Anonymous 00:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bloated bio of a scholar who appears to have made almost no impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
weak delete: More than a few journals remembered this individual after their passing, the one given in the article and this one [19]. With a book tribute here [A Legacy of Afrocentric, Decolonial, In-the-Life Theology and Bisexual Intersexional Philosophical Thought and Practice], but these all seem to be after this person passed away. I don't see much from when they were still alive. Oaktree b (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender, Religion, California, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
keep - hang on there is a 2023 festschrift dedicated to him - see, meeting WP:PROF criteria 1c Lajmmoore (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't have time right now to work on it further, but these sources might help someone who does here, here (in Spanish), here Lajmmoore (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep anyone who gets a festschrift devoted to them (from non-fringe publications) is notable. Wow this article needs to be rewritten though, lot of NPOV issues PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article could use some improvement, but he's well-cited in scholarly literature. Yuchitown (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the cites? In GS there are only 9, and we usually expect several thousands. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

comment I've made a start on re-writing the article, and will come back to it Lajmmoore (talk) 19:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep I've now re-written the article, which now has a much more comprehensive range of sources that discuss his work and legacy. The fact he has a festschrift means that he meets WP:PROF criteria 1c. The festschrift is published by Taylor & Francis. Lajmmoore (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lajmmoore's work shows plenty of references supporting notability and, as she pointed out, a Festschrift is sufficient for academic notability in itself. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 20:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leya Kırşan

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Of the two blue-linked items that she was in, one article had just a list item and one didn't even mention her. Of the 5 references, one just had he age, for two there was nothing there (404) and two just listed a few IMDB type factoids. Previously tagged for WP:Notability by a different NPP reviewer. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look at the corresponding article in Turkish, you can see that she's in the main cast of various notable productions. I don't have time to improve this right now but maybe Draftify or Redirect to Payitaht:_Abdülhamid#Season_2_2 (mentioned there) and interested users can expand either the draft or the page by reverting the R when they're confident they have enough. Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 19:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and expand with Turkish sources; meets WP:NACTOR With various significant roles in notable productions. -Mushy Yank. 10:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:NACTRESS criteria 1 with multiple notable roles in looking at the Turkish wikipedia pages (which have many more blue linked TV/Film work because obviously the Turkish wikipedia is going to have better coverage of Turkish TV/film). Searching in google news there is lots of Turkish-language media coverage of this actress and her work; enough to pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 12:29, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per all the keep votes above. Subject passes wp:gng, just dont have it as english sources. Kaizenify (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri

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

Can't establish notability. Fails GNG. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, I've added plenty of reliable news sources and reviews in article such as BBC News, Independent Urdu, 24 News, India Times, DAWN etc. Siginificant coverage found on google. It sometimes spells as Mohabbat Gumshuda Meri in google sources. Siasat Daily of India and The News International of Pakistan called it one of the trending show in India [20] and Pakistan [21].Libraa2019 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The significant coverage being claimed is not reliable. Non-bylined pieces falling under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, mentions, and churnalism do not count towards notability. If the show was worthy of notice, the press would have written more in-depth than a brief mention, mention in a reference about an actress, etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello; I am opposed to this being deleted: notable cast, notable creator, coverage for verification. https://www.youlinmagazine.com/story/muhabbat-gumshuda-meri-a-refreshing-tale-of-teenage-romance/MjUyOA== Review in Youlin (bylined) for example. A redirect (and merge) either to the director or to the list of the programs broadcast by the network but a Keep ~~would not shock me~~ [is also good, see below]. The coverage mentioned by Libraa10 is also an indication. Thank you.-Mushy Yank. 23:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

The reliability of Youlin has been questioned in the past. I will open a discussion at RSN in a few so we can get an official consensus either way. As far as verification, that is not what qualifies a television series for inclusion. It must still have significant coverage regardless of cast or creator. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the already-mentioned coverage, one can add for example:

Neighbours and childhood best friends, Zubia (Dananeer Mubeen) and Saim (Khushhal Khan) fall madly in love with each other but both their families refuse to take the feelings of the two young adults, barely out of their teens, seriously. Misunderstandings and family honour create obstacle after obstacle for the young lovers, leading them to an ill-planned elopement.With nowhere to stay and no money, Saim and Zubia agree to a quick nikaah read by their landlord but, with Zubia’s obsessed, angry brother-in-law Danyal (Ali Raza) in hot pursuit, they have to run again. Cold, hungry and insecure, Zubia goes into shock after strangers attack her. In a fear-filled rage, she tears up the nikaahnama and runs home, while Danyal catches Saim and beats him to within an inch of his life. Zubia is barely safe at home but Saim is fighting for his life. It seems that this may be the final blow to their fragile love story.Rahat Jabeen has given us a more authentic take on the self-doubt and foolish joy of young love. Strong performances from Khushhal Khan and Dananeer Mobeen, and a solid supporting cast have brought this story vividly to life. This popular show consistently makes ratings but, as usual, repetition and stretching are threatening to make it drag.

Bylined (Sadaf Haider) in Dawn.

+Bylined review (Ozair Majeed) (https://pakistanicinema.net/2023/06/04/muhabbat-gumshuda-meri-review/)

I consider there is sufficient coverage to either Keep or Redirect/merge, depending on what other users think. -Mushy Yank. 00:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping you, @Mushy Yank:. Discussion about Youline started here and here. For Dawn, the source is fine but its thin and only one. It is enough to verify but still needs more coverage. Pakistani Cinema is not reliable. No editorial guidelines and appears more a user generated content based on "your content" section. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep i add repction sources on series by --Sunuraju (talk) 02:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC) Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri: A Refreshing Tale of Teenage Romance[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been significantly improved with new sourcing which demonstrates it passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping you show me which sources show the significant improvement. Adding content without significant coverage would not be HEY. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Youlin Magazine source does not appear to have traction to be considered reliable to show notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:04, 25 November 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.

The result was merge‎ to Thoroughbred Racing on CBS. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thoroughbred Racing on CBS commentators

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

I'm not finding the needed coverage of these commentators as a grouping to meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, Horse racing, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The title is badly written but I do think sports commentators who specialize in covering horse races is an appropriate list topic under WP:NLIST. There appears to be enough of them on this one network for it to be a substantial list.4meter4 (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this needs a large reformatting to bring it in line with standards (and maybe a re-titling), but the information contained within it seems like it adds value to the encyclopedia. Certainly offers more useful information than many of the other Category:Lists of horse racing commentators. RachelTensions (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Thoroughbred Racing on CBS. I could not find any sources either. The only reasonble keep would be due to the length of the parent but I don't see a reason this information couldn't just be included there. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I think this is an appropriate fork of Thoroughbred Racing on CBS, but I would also support a merge to that article.4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thoroughbred Racing on CBS as an [WP:ATD]]. Cruft aside, the list doesn't exactly pass a group, and each individual line doesn't help to the sourcing either. However, the original merge target works well. Conyo14 (talk) 05:29, 1 December 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.

Industry Leaders

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

This is clearly an advertorial-style TV show that lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources under WP:NTV and WP:GNG. In terms of existing sources, the Herald Sun reference is actually to a suburban local paper owned by the same company, not to the Melbourne Herald Sun itself. Boneymau (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Boneymau (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The show seems clearly notable as an established broadcast TV program. The fact that the actual content of the show might be fluffy business cheerleading seems to be influencing the nomination, and it shouldn’t, that has nothing to do with the notability of the show.

The fact that this article is fluffy cheerleading however, is relevant, and this article isn’t ready to be public in its current form, hence the nomination. It will need an eventual source analysis but that’s premature until the article is NPOV.

When that happens, the analysis of sources should be mindful that this is media, and coverage of media within other media tends to follow different conventions. WilsonP NYC (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for draftification?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing here is very poor indeed. Tangential sources are used to prop up statements about companies mentioned in the article, bulking up the overall source count but adding nothing to the very scanty notability of this show. So we have a lot of content like "It has been credited with helping businesses gain exposure and recognition, as seen with companies like Core9" sourced to the Core9 blog. And this is by no means atypical. Sources 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 are TV listings (and by no means unique in this - it's just wearying picking through the 79 sources in this article - almost all of which are tangential, non-RS, listings or sourced to the show itself. There's literally nothing there, the whole article's SYNTH, OR and in short a man of straw. And once again, we have descended into poetry... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in Time (Doctor Who)

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

A box set that released various Doctor Who serials that had episodes missing. The article is predominantly uncited and contains almost entirely primary citations, and a brief BEFORE turns up very little outside of watch guides for missing episodes. I can see a redirect to Doctor Who missing episodes as an AtD, but overall this is a largely non-notable DVD box set release not separately notable from the concept of missing episodes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per nom; not even significant enough for a redirect. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
It's not a term that barely anyone would search, but User:Redrose64 has shown it's unique (even though no reliable source mentions that, the uniqueness is evident at a glance). Redirect to Doctor Who missing episodes DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Who missing episodes, redirects being cheap, and all. While there is obviously no content for a merge here, the "missing episodes" article does very briefly touch on the content of the set. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirects are cheap, but "Lost in Time" is so insignificant, searching for it with Doctor Who appended gives results mostly for the game of the same name(and there are lot of missing episode boxsets, so this isn't special. No need for redirecting. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoctorWhoFan91: This one is special, see my keep !vote below. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This DVD set was unique, as it gathers together in one package all of the odd episodes which couldn't justifiably be released as a single-story DVD. The criterion at the time that it was compiled was that if a story had more than half of its episodes in the BBC archives, it would get a standalone release; if it had 50% or fewer, the episodes went into Lost in Time, together with any associated clips. Also included was all surviving material for those stories where no complete episodes remained. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for mentioning this, as this info is not at either page. Though, is there a reliable source for this? I couldn't find one in a google search. Also, still would not meet WP:GNG, so it should a redirect at best. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some time between 2004 and 2009, I found that information at one or more of the following - I only recorded access dates for a few of them:
BBC Shop

DVD.CO.UK

Doctor Who on DVD (accessed 2 April 2008)

DVD Times

Find DVD

Doctor Who Restoration Team

Time Rotor Fault Locator (accessed 28 July 2008)

Time Rotor Hidden Danger (accessed 31 July 2008)

The TARDIS Library
All are now dead except the last one. IIRC, the Doctor Who Restoration Team link gave the most comprehensive information, hopefully it's been archived somewhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked all of them on the Wayback Machine- a couple are dead, but the ones with archived versions do not mention this info (though looking through the list does make it clear that its true). Doctor Who missing episodes actually does mention it, but its unreferenced. Also, its the only significant bit about it, with all necessary info already at DW missing episodes- a redirect at best. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64 Sure, the release was unique, but being a unique release doesn't automatically indicate a subject is notable standalone. All of your links have been to fan-sites, fan projects, and shopping sites. None of these are reliable, secondary coverage which shows this subject is notable. Regardless of its release status, it needs coverage to justify being a standalone article, and none of that has been shown yet. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reliable source for the orphaned episode mention- [22], Lost in Time, a triple DVD set containing ‘orphaned’ episodes from the series. Redrose64 - It's still not enough for a 'keep'. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a bit of trouble parsing the meaning, but I think Who's 50 p. 54 backs up the summary of the approach for content selection of these DVDs by Redrose64. Daranios (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments to Delete, Keep and Redirect this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Liz I think the consensus is "Redirect"- I changed my !vote to redirect (prior to the relisting), the nom is fine with a redirect, and Redrose64's !vote does not show it meets WP:GNG, only that it's unique. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can anyone with more knowledge say if the chapter "Lost in Time" in Alan Kistler's Doctor Who: A History, starting p. 81, refers to this DVD set or not? Daranios (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not; it's just a two-page subsection of a different chapter. It addresses the missing episodes generally, but not this DVD set. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doctor Who missing episodes for now: I've seen mentions in a number of secondary sources like The Doctor Who Error Finder, Who's 50, p. 54, Die Dechiffrierung von Helden, p. 155, which would not support a stand-alone article, but would lend themselves to some expansion of the brief mention at the target. Daranios (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:SIGCOV. There is a paragraph on the DVD set in: [23]. There is a lot of coverage sprinkled throughout this academic book: [24] See pages 34, 45, 51, 65, 69, 70, 80, 83, and 98 for coverage of Lost in Time. See pages 13, 15, 42, 45, 57, 64, 68, 69, 71, 72, 82, and 83 for coverage of The Missing Years which was a documentary unique to this DVD set. Pages 81-82 of this book cover this DVD set. There is also coverage in this journal article: [25] 4meter4 (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Through Time is decent, but is written by Andrew Cartmel, a former script editor for the show, so I'm not sure how separate that is from coverage of the program. The Doctor Who Error Finder is primarily trivial mentions; it only refers to the CD as a source for their coverage of missing episodes, and does not actually dictate discussion to the CD that could be considered significant coverage. Doctor Who: A History only briefly mentions the CD; the section "Lost in Time" is used as the name of the section covering missing episodes, and does not focus on the CD bar brief mention of its existence. I can't access the journal; could you get a quote of what mention of Lost in Time it has?

Regardless of the above, none of this really dictates the problem of this being a separately notable subject of Doctor Who missing episodes. Per Wikipedia:NOPAGE, "Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page." Lost in Time is inherently a missing episodes collection, and all coverage of it is in relation to missing episodes and how to view them. This is inherently a topic that makes more sense covered with the context of the missing episodes and why being able to watch them is important, especially since a lot of the article currently used is inherently about the wider missing episodes topic already covered at the main missing episodes article. What coverage that exists can be merged without issue per Daranios. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other XfDs

Television proposed deletions

News Channel 3 Knowledge Bowl (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)
Trick mode (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)
Hessische Geschichten (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)
Relatively Speaking (game show) (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)
Real Magic TV (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)
Born Lucky (via WP:PROD on 7 November 2024)

^ Schwindt, Oriana (2016-07-21). "Paget Brewster Returns to 'Criminal Minds' for Multiple Episodes in Season 12". Variety. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
^ Gonzalez, Sandra (2016-08-30). "'Criminal Minds': Paget Brewster back for good". CNN. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
^ "Paget Brewster Is Returning to Criminal Minds (Yes, Again)". E! Online. 2016-02-10. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
^ France, Lisa Respers (2016-07-22). "Paget Brewster returning to 'Criminal Minds'". CNN. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
^ "Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Ending Explained: Does Emily Prentiss Survive?". IMDb. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
^ Dumaraog, Ana (2024-05-29). "Prentiss' Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Story Nods Back To Her Past, Teases Showrunner". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
^ Dumaraog, Ana (2024-07-02). "Prentiss Is Hilariously High In Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Episode Clip". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
^ "Paget Brewster Got Nostalgic About Her 'Criminal Minds' Run Ahead of 'Evolution' Season 2". Yahoo Life. 2024-06-01. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
^ Mondor, Brooke (2021-05-31). "The Prentiss Scene On Criminal Minds That Went Too Far". Looper. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
^ Spencer, Samuel (2020-02-06). "'Criminal Minds' Season 15: Will Prentiss Break Up With Mendoza?". Newsweek. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
^ "Criminal Minds' Paget Brewster Embraces Her Grays in New Photo". E! Online. 2022-08-09. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
^ "'Criminal Minds' fan recap: Paget Brewster returns as Emily Prentiss". Yahoo Entertainment. 2016-03-31. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
^ Mitovich, Matt Webb (2016-03-28). "Criminal Minds Boss: Prentiss' Visit Brings 'Laughs and Love' — 'The Timing Couldn't Have Been More Perfect'". TVLine. Retrieved 2024-11-25.
^ "Criminal Minds: Top 8 Prentiss Moments". TVGuide.com. Retrieved 2024-11-25.

[1] Schwindt, Oriana (2016-07-21). "Paget Brewster Returns to 'Criminal Minds' for Multiple Episodes in Season 12". Variety. Retrieved 2024-11-25.

[2] Gonzalez, Sandra (2016-08-30). "'Criminal Minds': Paget Brewster back for good". CNN. Retrieved 2024-11-25.

[3] "Paget Brewster Is Returning to Criminal Minds (Yes, Again)". E! Online. 2016-02-10. Retrieved 2024-11-25.

[4] France, Lisa Respers (2016-07-22). "Paget Brewster returning to 'Criminal Minds'". CNN. Retrieved 2024-11-25.

[5] "Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Ending Explained: Does Emily Prentiss Survive?". IMDb. Retrieved 2024-11-25.

[6] Dumaraog, Ana (2024-05-29). "Prentiss' Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Story Nods Back To Her Past, Teases Showrunner". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2024-11-25.

[7] Dumaraog, Ana (2024-07-02). "Prentiss Is Hilariously High In Criminal Minds: Evolution Season 2 Episode Clip". ScreenRant. Retrieved 2024-11-25.

[8] "Paget Brewster Got Nostalgic About Her 'Criminal Minds' Run Ahead of 'Evolution' Season 2". Yahoo Life. 2024-06-01. Retrieved 2024-11-25.

[9] Mondor, Brooke (2021-05-31). "The Prentiss Scene On Criminal Minds That Went Too Far". Looper. Retrieved 2024-11-25.

[10] Spencer, Samuel (2020-02-06). "'Criminal Minds' Season 15: Will Prentiss Break Up With Mendoza?". Newsweek. Retrieved 2024-11-25.

[11] "Criminal Minds' Paget Brewster Embraces Her Grays in New Photo". E! Online. 2022-08-09. Retrieved 2024-11-25.

[12] "'Criminal Minds' fan recap: Paget Brewster returns as Emily Prentiss". Yahoo Entertainment. 2016-03-31. Retrieved 2024-11-25.

[13] Mitovich, Matt Webb (2016-03-28). "Criminal Minds Boss: Prentiss' Visit Brings 'Laughs and Love' — 'The Timing Couldn't Have Been More Perfect'". TVLine. Retrieved 2024-11-25.

[14] "Criminal Minds: Top 8 Prentiss Moments". TVGuide.com. Retrieved 2024-11-25.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]