Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Entertainment

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

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

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Entertainment|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Entertainment. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Entertainment

[edit]

The Flash (1990 film)

[edit]
The Flash (1990 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant WP:CONTENTFORK of a rejected draft Draft:The Flash (1990 film) which is for a film that does not actually exist on its own, but is rather a physical media release of the pilot episode of The Flash (1990 TV series), which was created by a since blocked user bypassing the AfC system. This topic is not notable on its own and the release of it on physical media does not warrant a separate article or the distinction of being a different film when it is not. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -This is just the 2 hour pilot for The Flash (1990 TV series) and has no independent notability. The title with a disambiguator of "1990 film" is rather misleading as this is a pilot episode and not a film so I do not support redirection. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Draft:The Flash (1990 film): or Keep and merge the draft into the page. Coverage seems to be sufficient to meet the requirements for notability. -Mushy Yank. 18:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You're claiming Coverage seems to be sufficient to meet the requirements for notability. Can you point out that coverage? The references provided in the article are about the TV series, and not this "movie". Even the claim of this being edited to a 93 minute VHS release is not substatntiated by the provided reference as it states There were three “movies” — multiple episodes cut to feature length and released on home video — that came out on VHS so it isn't even clear that this pilot episode was released as a movie rather than repackaging and cutting multiple epsiodes to make a "movie". -- Whpq (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See below. The coverage is already in the main article and a redirect can address the issue. -Mushy Yank. 18:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The "AfC system" is not mandatory. -Mushy Yank. 18:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a subject already rejected at AfC because it did not meet notability, and then this was created to bypass that, thus ignoring that it did not meet notability. This is not even a new topic, as it is just the series' pilot episode released on Blu-ray as if it were a movie, when it is not. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. (Even if it's a pilot dressed as a film, that commercial ruse was not the deed of the page creator.) Redirect to The Flash (1990 TV series)#Home media, where it is covered, then. -Mushy Yank. 18:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I still believe this DAB is misleading as it implies a film exists from 1990 when that is not true. A more appropriate and accurate DAB would be "The Flash (1990 TV pilot)". Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this is why I feel like redirecting in this case isn't useful. Additionally, while this concern is tangential, I think there's a non zero chance the creator could reverse the redirection via sock and I feel like it's better to just delete the history and cut off that potential for disruption. And as I said below, I'm not sure this would be a good redirect, but also I don't think we need to quibble over that too much. There seems to be consensus to delete this regardless. If another editor in good standing does feel the need to redirect the title after the AfD is closed, then that'd be perfectly fine. Edit: My opinion has changed and my vote has been revised accordingly. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirect names do not have to be fully accurate. We even have the rcat Template:R from incorrect name. Redirects need to be plausible search terms, and if someone has a misconception about a topic which is reflected in their search query, that will be corrected upon their arrival to the target article, where they will be able to learn how the topic is really defined. —Alalch E. 05:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The creator who published the draft has been observed gaming/brute-forcing the AfC system and has not demonstrated adequate understanding of notability and other standards for articles despite being informed multiple times, so while it is true that AfC is not mandatory, the publication of this draft in this context is a case of WP:IDHT. Trailblazer has been trying to correct the user for a while, even giving input on the suitability of this specific creation, and is understandably frustrated at having been ignored. That's a separate issue of course, but I just thought I'd try and clarify. silviaASH (inquire within) 18:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. That was helpful. (See my comments above.) -Mushy Yank. 18:50, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy speedily delete redirect to The Flash (1990 TV series)#Home media. The sources do not actually cover the pilot as a distinct entity, and certainly do not cover the pilot as "The Flash: The Movie". Each of them are repeatedly WP:REFBOMBed through the article to give the superficial appearance of sourcing, but none of them actually support the view that the article takes of the "film". When I saw this article as a draft, I tried to look up the "film", and, finding nothing substantive other than sources about the 1990 TV series, genuinely wondered if perhaps the draft was a hoax, until this marketing strategy was explained to the creator at Draft talk:The Flash (1990 film) by nom.
    This is obviously a WP:POVFORK from someone who insists on the view of the pilot and the "film" as two distinct entities. There is no substantive sourcing available to support this view, and as such this article will likely only serve to confuse readers. Given the lack of significant coverage of even the marketing of the pilot as a film, I'm not sure this title is even a useful redirect. silviaASH (inquire within) 19:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit: Alalch's points have changed my mind with regards to redirecting the article. I now support redirection. However, the redirect should be watched by editors after the discussion is closed so that any further disruption by the creator can be responded to promptly, if it should occur (hopefully it does not). silviaASH (inquire within) 09:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I had originally marked this for CSD A10 but it was rejected, thus, I have taken it here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Understandably so: a redirect is plausible and the page could have been considered a split. -Mushy Yank. 19:41, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources on the page do not really cover the crucial points, indeed. But some existing sources do (see above (Draft/Main article), for example). And if this "film" is not a notable entity but only notable as part of something else, a redirect should be considered (as a section [repeated in the Draft] covers the production of this in the main article). GBooks shows a lot of results to verify the release and content but try to search with the titles of parts II and III as this one has a very generic title. Anyway, there is no reason to speedy-delete this, as far as I can see. -Mushy Yank. 19:39, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt Even thinking of it as a pilot episode as it should be, this is a poor recap and framing of a standard episode of television as a 'movie' which outside one 90s VHS tape that appropriately existed to introduce the show to video store renters (and which other generations have wrongly twisted into some campaign to convert it to a theatrical franchise when that was never intended), has otherwise been appropriately marketed as just another episode in other releases of the series as it should be. Nathannah • 📮 23:22, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no sources actually cover this subject enough to warrant a standalone article, it's home to just unrelated and irrelevant content. BarntToust 03:23, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Flash (1990 TV series)#Home media. "The Flash (1990 film)" is a plausible search term. Agree with all the deletes. However, it was stated above that there is a non zero chance the creator could reverse the redirection via sock. On principle I reject this reason not to employ an otherwise valid ATD. We have NPP, page protection, an ability to block socks, etc.—Alalch E. 05:56, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Baker (entertainer)

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

This guy looks almost notable, but doesn't appear to cut it really.

Vanshika Parmar

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

Non notable entertainer and model. No significant achievements to pass Notability.

Fails Wp:GNG and Wp:ENTERTAINER Zuck28 (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrietty (drag queen)

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

Cannot find enough in-depth, non-trivial coverage for this person to meet GNG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP.
She is quite literally still airing on the show, the article is obviously going to expand more until the show stops airing or she is eliminated. In addition, she is a well-rounded performer who has a lot more to offer than simply her run on a television show. There is no reason to delete this article.
The nomination stems from a person whose name is a wikipedia page with less content than the Arrietty page... so... maybe just maybe this stems from a negatively minded conservative and not a real care towards Wikipedia guidelines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanahary - here Zanahary if you care so much about GNG how about you go try to delete an article that actually does not meet GNG and has very little in-depth/non-trivial coverage. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You got me. I'm a Malagasy sky deity jealous that my followers have dwindled to below the followers of this fabulous drag performer. I projected my consciousness into a field of clay to construct a golem that is now serving my divinity through Wikipedia.
Anyways, WP:CRYSTAL; WP:TOOSOON. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENTERTAINER
thank you, next. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Since the show is still in competition, this nomination is a few days premature. Let's see what happens this weekend. Bearian (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We wait for notability, not for persistent appearance of lack of notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Mobetie

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

The links masquerading as sources contain only fleeting mentions of the subject and with exception of the Hamburger Abendblatt, a local gossip newspaper, are all promotional claims in this article which is little more than a potted CV. BEFORE reveals absolutely nothing else but the standard raft of Instagram and other social media. The article has the hallmarks of a commissioned work. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

Proposed deletions

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Entertainment&oldid=1278311766"