This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related toTelevision. It is one of manydeletion lists coordinated byWikiProject 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 atWP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page atWP: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 theedit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding{{subst:delsort|Television|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed bya 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'sdeletion policy andWP: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:
no sources or info about the movie beyond two credits and an incomplete release date. results gave me databases, wikipedia, and passing mentions in books about assorted, probably-non-croatian-film topics, seemingly only in the context of the director. the croatian article is equally raw, and the welsh one is only nominally better (even if the sources there seem unreliable)consarn(talck)(contirbuton s)12:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Plenty of youtube videos about this person, but I don't see anything else. Based on the date of death, there are possibly paper sources, but I wouldn't know where to look for Mexican newspapers from the 1980s or earlier.Oaktree b (talk)01:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that notability and potential COI are important considerations for this article. Could we discuss what specific sources or criteria might help establish notability for McCraft AinebyoonaKora Kyoona (talk)10:14, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious attemptedpromotion for early-career content creator who has only gotten his stuff into typical self-upload sites plus an unreliable Ugandan self-promotion website that pretends to be a news source. The rejected draft is telling, and this could be aspeedy delete perWP:G11. Good luck to him as he gets started. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)17:12, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concerns about notability and potential COI. Given the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources and the nature of the content creator's presence online. Allow me provide his social media links especially TikTok.
The existing sources used on the page are either dead links or do not seem like the most quality, reliable sources. I asked for help with finding more sources on this page back in January and it seems like no one else was able to find anymore. I just did a search myself and was unable to find sources. Therefore, this page failsWP:SIGCOV andWP:GNG.Gjb0zWxOb (talk)20:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific number threshold that a page needs to be considered "adequate"? I have seen pages be deleted for having many more RSes from much better sources (New York Times, BBC, etc.). Just curious if there is a certain numerical threshold and if the quality of the sources factor in.Gjb0zWxOb (talk)Gjb0zWxOb (talk)21:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article created by someone with a username almost identical to the subject's businesses, Niltoni. Even without the promotional tone, there's nothing in here that indicates notability and I haven't been able to find any third party sources withWP:SIGCOV.Orange sticker (talk)13:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I took a look at the article since I am Greek. Apart from failingWP:GNG as you already said, it is also outdated. Christos Ferentinos is no longer the presenter of Deal, and I don't remember him presenting a Fort Boyard game on Star ChannelOakchris1955 (talk)07:43, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Previously moved to draftspace due to having zero sources, however the creator moved it back. It's been over a week and they've added zero sources.
I found little-to-no independent reliable coverage of the show, and the page is full of inane unencyclopedic comments from the editor themselves. For example:
...(i think some actresses will join other) they will do press conference soon btw no confirm abt actresses who play in each series.
But when the enemies find out where they are hiding, the final battle is coming! Will Lom be able to save Princess Blue and prove their true love? And will the love between an ordinary policewoman and a noble princess really overcome all obstacles?
Their relationship is like a flame and oil that can cause the fire of love to flare up or crack again.
Aside from this, most of the page appears to be AI-generated.For example:
Her writing often weaves in themes of identity, class, duty, and vulnerability—presenting love stories that are both romantic and socially relevant.
...each navigating complex relationships shaped by their personalities and the symbolic nature of their element.
The editor who created the page is likely not proficient in English as the page, even in the lead paragraph, contains a lengthy list of grammar issues.For example:
North Star Entertainment will produce all 4 series, used 1 director for continues to be the same
Comment - it certainly can't remain in main space in its present state. These two references appear to be RS:[2],[3], but both these and all the unreliable blog/social media/Channel 7 coverage found all seem to be about it being an upcoming series.This September reference from Channel 7 is talking about them still filming it: do they mean upcoming episodes not yet broadcast? There have been several public promos, and several of the cast appear to be notable actors. But it appears to be an upcoming TV series, and all I can find on YouTube is trailers, coverage of the promo events and AI slop. Can anyone with fluency in Thai confirm whether it's actually been broadcast on Channel 7 yet? If it's actually been broadcast nationally then notability should be presumed, but if it'sWP:NFTV (essay, not guideline) then draftifying would seem the best course.Wikishovel (talk)13:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article creator has added two blog posts from thestandard.co, a faux-newspaper blog. That about sums up the prospects for this. I would have favoured draftifying, but as article creator has persistently moved the page back from draft, and moved it around during the course of this AFD, it's vanishingly unlikely that it will stay in draft. No indication of notability perWP:GNG, and it's unclear whether the series will ever see the light of day, so this should be treated on the same basis asWP:NFF. Since everything apart from the lead paragraph is unsourced fan fluff (per nomination) and should be removed, little of value will be lost in case the series is ever actually completed and broadcast.Wikishovel (talk)15:02, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is in desperate need of clean-up. I have done the bare minimum in terms of restructuring, removingWP:OR comments and general tidying. On a cursory search it appears that noreliable coverage exists.11WB (talk)12:59, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Thai version of the article had plenty of references. I have added them to the English version. When you are evaluating an article about a non-English topic, it is often valuable to look at the corresponding articles in other language Wikipedias.Eastmain (talk •contribs)04:36, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; most sources are clearly junk, I can't tell whether the one that might not be is a real news article or a press release, and Google didn't turn up much. Also, the article consists of AI slop that the creator has tendentiously reinserted (including while logged out) when I tried to stubify the page.Passengerpigeon (talk)14:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still not yet notable perWP:NACTOR, three years on from the last AFD. Her career is ticking over nicely, and she's had at least three more television roles, but all I can find on her in reliable sources is the same as the last AFD: interviews and passing mentions. I propose that we restore the redirect, as anWP:ATD. Editors searching for any coverage I missed, please note that there's a tennis journalist with the same name, so a-tennis in the search is helpful.Wikishovel (talk)08:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More are appearances in short films, one or two appearances on a tv show... not the stuff of notability. Beyond cast lists, I don't see coverage about this person.Oaktree b (talk)15:47, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The role in "Under the Bridge" doesn't appear to be notable either, the show has been nominated for awards, but this person isn't listed as having any nominations. The 2018 TV movie appears minor as well, I don't see much of anything about it. Seems to be one of those Xmas movies the make year after year and pump out at an amazing pace.Oaktree b (talk)15:50, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. PassesWP:GNG andWP:NCREATIVE andWP:ANYBIO. Plenty of sources in google books, google scholar, the internet archive, etc. The article was horribly promotional and in a terrible state so I chopped everything that wasn't sourced, and trimmed out all the puffery. What is left though, shows a two time nominee of theHong Kong Film Award which is enough to pass both criteria 1 ofWP:ANYBIO and criteria 4c ofWP:NCREATIVE. That said, aWP:BEFORE was clearly not done because sourcing is easy to find in Hong Kong mainstream press as well as books and journals (ie he or his plays are the primary subject of multiple theatre journal articles in google scholar such as[6],[7]; google books has stuff like[8],[9], etc.; internet archive has sources like[10],[11],[12],[13], etc).4meter4 (talk)22:38, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A list of "supplementary" Doctor Who episodes; the problem with this list is that the scope it's defining just... doesn't exist. This list includes things ranging from official "minisodes" to unrelated films produced in the 1960s to various spin-off material pieces from throughout the years in a way that official sources do not actually define as being a unified group. The grouping of these subjects together is entirely original research and any sources are discussing only individual entries without any information pertaining to how they connect to the other entries as a group.
PerWP:LISTN these lists need sourcing as a group to be notable but that neither that sourcing nor that grouping exists. A source search BEFORE yields nothing for the concept of "supplementary episodes" and any other search time I try yields nothing that indicates this grouping is notable, even trimmed down; even the "minisodes" mentioned above lack group notability. This list is simply non-notable and original research and should be deleted. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)00:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very confusing proposal for deletion. Per LISTN, the claim that "these lists need sourcing as a group" is blatantly false; quoting it, that is "[o]ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable". Indeed: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists", and "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." "Supplementary" means "something additional; an extra". These includes additional, extra content released outside of the broadcast episodes. That's a very clear scope and definition. At this point, there is no clear policy or guideline cited that supports the deletion of this article. --Alex_21TALK01:39, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex 21 this is still original research. No source defines this listing of episodes like this, and we follow the sources above any other definition. This inherently goes against what Wikipedia is not. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)01:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again: that is not a core policy or "must have" per NLIST. Kindly refer to the rest of my quotes regarding that particular guideline and discuss why you believe they do not apply here. The article itself very clearly defines what is included in that article. --Alex_21TALK01:57, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Original research should not be in any article, and just because it's a list does not mean it is exempt from that. The article may define the scope, but do sources support that this scope actually exists? Your other arguments are just arguing why, hypothetically, sources wouldn't be needed to prove LISTN, but the entire argument of a hypothetical navigational list is called into question when the entire topic is backed on original research with no sources discussing it whatsoever. You haven't actually addressed why this original research isn't a problem, nor have you discussed the inherent sourcing issues with this. An article having a few sources may have an argument, but having no sources at all is far more questionable. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)02:04, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the original research? You need to have an actual basis and proof of policy violation before you make baseless claims, and your disagreement on the definition of a word is not original research, thus you've presented... nothing. That's what this boils down to - you disagree on the use of the word "supplementary". Your entire argument is based on ignoring the rest of LISTN, which you are now aware does not apply here. Does the article need more sources? Yes. So tag it so. A lack of sources it not a reasoning for a deletion; you've tried deletion discussions like this before, to no avail. --Alex_21TALK07:08, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of sources is inherently a reason for deletion because if no sources exist, there's nothing to base an article on. I've done a detailed BEFORE and foundnothing sourcing-wise that groups this topic together like this, nor anything that even discusses this topic period. I've said this multiple times above. If the sources don't exist we can't simply tag it as needing more sources and moving on, because that kind of improvement is unlikely to ever happen or even be possible. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)16:09, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the content in detail, I can agree that it's extended to far beyond what's necessary, but there's still relevant conntent here. Thoughts on my proposal below? The article used to only list actual supplemental episodes in 2021, before it was fancrufted out of proportion by one anon. --Alex_21TALK21:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex 21, commenting on @Pokelego999 'trying this before to no avail' is a borderline violation ofWP:FOC. PL is a respectable editor and the focus should be on content and not conduct.
WP:LISTN states the following: 'One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.' Emphasis here on the 'group or set' being documented, the latter sentence is referring to individual list entries, not the group as a whole, which still requires coverage fromreliable sources. In this case, none of the sourcing in this list article, which relies onWP:BLOGS andWP:TUMBLR, among others, refer to "supplementary" Doctor Who episodes as "supplementary". For this reason I agree entirely with PL and !vote todelete the article.11WB (talk)01:39, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is noted, thanks for the ping. I have already discussed LISTN in detail, to the entire extent of the guideline, and I do not feel the need to do so again. If you disagree with my conduct, you are welcome to tell me so at my talk page, so you can focus on the content here rather than conduct. --Alex_21TALK02:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I get what this list is trying to do. It wants to catch all theDr. Who episodes and television films that don't fit neatly into the other lists. In that respect it is acting like aWP:Navigation page. On the other hand I get the criticism of the nominator, and we really should have a better source based way of organizing and defining the list. On balance, absent another way of navigating to these pages, I think the loss of this list as navigational tool would be bad. We do need an index for these episodes for navigational purposes and that is what this list currently does for us. So keep, but only for that reason.4meter4 (talk)03:02, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge entries into relevant season articles: I struggle to see the organisational benefit of this list outside their main articles. The scope currently is wildly expansive, including mini-episodes, trailers, interstitial scenes and character crossovers, the Cushing films for some reason (which are neither episodes or supplementary by any measure), even BBC One idents(!). Clearly that scope could be refined and isn't cause for deletion in itself, but it does represent the wider issue that this categorisation isn't clear or significant, or helpful to Wikipedia readers. As long as all its "episodes" are mentioned in the relevant main articles, it's surplus to requirements.U-Mos (talk)09:45, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd absolutely support removing content like the films, trailers and idents, they aren't needed here. I remember when this article used to literally list just the supplementary minisodes and episode-related content, then it was expanded unnecessarily by anon's.This is what the article used to look like before a singular anon made240+ consecutive edits in October 2021 to the article (and then another100+) - I support restoring this version. That way, the scope is restored to being defined as content released to accompany and supplement episodes. Thoughts? --Alex_21TALK21:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be unopposed to restoring it should this be kept, but I'm only going to change to a Keep vote myself if the minisodes can be found to be independently notable of the wider series, otherwise I favor U-Mos's proposal. I did a search for minisodes by themselves and found little covering them as a set, and I feel navigationally it makes more sense to organize them with their respective series articles than as they are now. Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)22:31, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, fair enough. I'll go through soon and start removing the unsourced trivia/fancruft. As you said, a lack of sources is inherently a reason for deletion because if no sources exist, so there's no need to wait. --Alex_21TALK01:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FailsWP:GNG/WP:ORG. Nothing in google scholar, google books, internet archive, or newspapers.com. The only sources cropping up are the University of Kent's website with blogs and such housed there covering it. These aren't sufficiently independent so this is straight delete for me.4meter4 (talk)22:18, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, I moved it to draft hoping it could be improved, but the lack of non-primary sources makes it very hard to fix or establish notability.Ckfasdf (talk)20:51, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to share my side as the person who started the article.
I don’t have any connection with Radhika Bhide — no paid work, no personal link. I just help some independent artists with their online visibility for free sometimes.
Regarding notability:
Even though she is not the winner of the show, she has receiveda lot of independent media coverage recently. Her performances onI-Popstar (Season 1) went viral, and multiple well-known outlets covered her songs and interviews: Maharashtra Times, NDTV Marathi, Loksatta, Lokmat, Saam TV, ABP Majha, Lokshahi News, JustShowBiz, etc. These are allorganic, non-sponsored articles.
She may not have charted or been signed to a major label yet, but the amount of independent coverage she has received suggests she meets general notability, not just the musician-specific criteria. If anything needs fixing or cleanup, I’m happy to work on it.Aditya Jagdhane (talk)07:04, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If she has not charted or released music under a major label, how would she passWP:NMUSICIAN? As far as the COI, you were asked about that on your talk page. If we can continue the conversation there it would better as this page is a discussion about notability, not editor conduct. --CNMall41 (talk)05:04, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: she earned some Marathi language news coverage to supportWP:GNG but is it sufficient for inclusion in English Wikipedia? A matter of concern here to be addressed by some experienced editors.SaTnamZIN (talk)05:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources in Marathi would help. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,Svartner (talk)21:55, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 2, won't translate via Google Translate, but it has many instagram posts, so I"m assuming it's not an extensive source. Source 8 says it was written by AI when I translate it, so, that's no good. I'm going withe a !delete unless we can get better sources.Oaktree b (talk)01:12, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, per the nominator, the subject has not receivedWP:SIGCOV. Yes there's a decent amount of referencesbut, the coverage is not significant. It's largely in passing. Mentions of Copper Topp releasing a song, appearing in a theatre production and appearing at a small non-descript Pride event are not notable mentions. It veers intoWP:TRIVIA because none of those appearances themselves are notable or significant beyond existence. Its not like the pride event, theatre production or song got coverage or notoriety, the article simply states Copper Topp's associations with them.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLil-unique1 (talk •contribs)22:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Most sources are Q+A interviews with almost zero SIGCOV of her/him. Being openly diabetic and wearing a Metro themed dress doesn't make someone notable either.Dougal18 (talk)09:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orDraftify, per the nominator, the subject has not receivedWP:SIGCOV. Yes there's a decent amount of referencesbut, the coverage is not significant. Simply stating existence or association with other things where the association or activity was not specifically notable doesn't contribute to SIGCOV or BLP.>>Lil-unique1(talk) —22:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this isnot a majority vote, but instead adiscussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia haspolicies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, andconsensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember toassume good faith on the part of others and tosign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Completing nomination for IP user. Their argument for deletion is:
Ex biker who's written some books and consulted on some TV shows about being a biker.
Most of the sources are user generated sites like IMDB or sites linked directly to the subject. The independent sources that mention him are either passing mentions or promotional content.
DELETE - With the exception of one article onmalive.com, I am not seeing anything else to establish notability. (Note: I removed many of unreliable sources such as IMDB).Kyunde (talk)03:23, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Winterhalder was a former high-ranking world leader of the Bandidos motorcycle club who was instrumental in expanding the organization worldwide and was assigned to coordinate the assimilation of the Rock Machine into the Bandidos during the Quebec Biker War, a conflict that cost more than one-hundred and sixty people their lives. He's an author and subject matter expert published worldwide who has written more books about outlaw bikers and motorcycle clubs than anyone on the planet, and a television producer who has produced dozens of television shows about the genre.— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2025-34751-43 (talk)13:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)—2025-3471-43 (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
Edward Winterhalder meets multiple criteria for notability underWP:AUTHOR,WP:CREATIVE, and general notability guidelines.
=== 1. Widely Cited and Recognized as an Important Source on Outlaw Motorcycle Culture ===
Winterhalder is consistently cited by journalists, authors, documentary producers, and media outlets for his insider knowledge of outlaw motorcycle clubs. His commentary and expertise have appeared across major national and international media platforms, includingFox News,ABC Nightline,National Geographic,History Channel,Inside Edition, and theCBC.
This demonstrates he is “widely cited by peers or successors,” satisfying the first criterion under WP:AUTHOR.
=== 2. Major Contributor to an Extensive, Recognized Body of Work ===
Winterhalder has authored or co-authoredmore than fifteen nonfiction books, many of which have been translated into multiple languages (including German, French, Spanish, Dutch, and Japanese), indicating broad international reach.
His works document significant historical events—most notably theQuebec Biker War and theassimilation of the Rock Machine into the Bandidos—which are frequently referenced in academic, journalistic, and cultural discussions about outlaw biker history.
This satisfies the WP:AUTHOR requirement for having "created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work" that has receivedindependent, repeated coverage.
=== 3. Subject of Multiple Independent Articles, Interviews, and Media Features ===
Winterhalder’s work is not self-published or self-promoted; it has been covered by numerousindependent periodicals, including:
GQ
USA Today
Vice
Seattle Weekly
Austin Chronicle and others.
Because WP:AUTHOR requires that a creator’s work be theprimary subject of multiple independent, reliable sources, this criterion is clearly met.
=== 4. Major Roles in Television Production and Documentaries ===
As atelevision producer and creator, Winterhalder has developed multiple nonfiction TV series, including:
Quebec Biker War (based on his books)
Real American Bikers
Steel Horse Cowboys
Living on the Edge
Biker Chicz
These areindependent works that have received media coverage and industry recognition, meeting WP:AUTHOR’s third criterion regarding creators of “significant or well-known works.”
Additional ongoing productions—includingHeavy Duty Bikers (UK, currently in development)—further demonstrate sustained notability.
=== 5. International Literary & Cultural Presence ===
Winterhalder has appeared as a keynote literary speaker, including at major international events such as the2019 Emirates Airline Festival of Literature—one of the world’s largest and most notable literary gatherings.
This constitutes “significant critical attention” under WP:AUTHOR and reinforces his standing as a notable creative professional.
----
== Conclusion ==
Edward Winterhalder fulfills multiple independent criteria underWP:AUTHOR andWP:GNG. His longstanding influence as a writer, media figure, producer, and cultural commentator—combined with extensive coverage from independent, reliable sources—clearly establishesencyclopedic notability. The article should therefore beKEEP under Wikipedia’s guidelines.~2025-35227-69 (talk)19:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Winterhalder meets the followingWP:NAUTHOR criteria
1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; Winterhalder was a former high-ranking world leader of the Bandidos motorcycle club. He was involved in the Quebec Biker War to the extent he was notably subject to legal proceedings in Canada to prevent him from entering the country. 2.The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); He documented his career in the Bandidos and his account of the Quebec Biker War in his autobiographical books The Assimilation and Searching for My Identity Volumes 1 and 2 providing a unique first hand view of these events, which is currently in development for TV.Winterhalder also PassesWP:GNG given above and his wide range of other books and TV projects and interviews— Precedingunsigned comment added by~2025-35222-97 (talk)21:54, 20 November 2025 (UTC)—2025-35222-97 (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep perWP:GNG. The subject's associates are not helping his case here but the sources linked above do evidence notability, though a few are passing mentions. Particularly[57], the MLive source[58], this seattle weekly source[59],[60], this full piece in the Courant[61], from a search I did that wasn't even comprehensive and didn't delve much into non-surface web sources. Sources are spread over a wide geographical and chronological range as well. Lots of interview sources as well, though those are less useful for proving notability. All in all, he is a notable person who has been covered in reliable sources (probably also passes NAUTHOR but I did not check for book reviews). I would keep a closer eye on this article for promotional editing.PARAKANYAA (talk)18:26, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further input on the sources listed by several editors above? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,CycloneYoristalk!01:28, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously merged intoDish TV (and subsequently the redirect was edit-warred substantially). An account with one edit made a new article from the redirect without justification. All the independent sources are covering either the merge of the two companies orDirect-to-home television in general. There's also a promotional tone, and I don't think there's anything here worth merging. I'd like to restore the redirect.lp0 on fire()18:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: FailsWP:NEPISODE episode does not meet notability requirements, coverage is limited to routine summaries and recaps without significant independent analysis discussion or lasting encyclopedic relevance.ThilioR O B O T🤖talk16:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. This article is part of a series of five articles nominated for deletion unnecessarily, in my opinion. I have experience writingDrag Race episode articles, including some with Good status such as "And the Rest Is Drag", so I'd like to think I have a decent sense of how much sourcing is appropriate for a standalone entry. Like episode in the U.S., I think many (but not all) episodes of this series are notable and I would encourage article expansion, not deletion. It is hard to focus on all at once, but I'm working to expandRats: The Rusical,Lairy Poppins: The Rusical,Pop of the Tops - Live: The Rusical, and the others, as I have time. --Another Believer(Talk)01:02, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with draftifyng, butWP:NEPISODE sets quite a high bar when it comes to scripted television, and to my view reality television should have an even higher bar. I just picked a US episode at random, and there is no way that "Frock the Vote!" is anywhere close to passing notability either to my view. I think the issue here is that youdon't have the "decent sense of how much sourcing is appropriate for a standalone entry" that you claim.--woodensuperman03:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, it's just trivial and routine coverage. Same as "Dragazines" from the same season, along with many others. And I'd appreciate it if you'd stop adding non notable content to Wikipedia so I didn't have to nominate it, or at least accept it when the content is redirected.--woodensuperman05:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toRuPaul's Drag Race UK series 6#ep55. In general, I look for at least two sources with significant coverage of the episode to meet GNG and NEPISODE (this could be reviews, production info, etc.). Looking through the current sources:
1 and8 are recaps with social media comments; I would not consider this significant coverage.
3,4,5,7, and9 focus on cast members, not the episode.
10 is trivial given that it covers so many episodes.
That leaves only2 as potential significant coverage (and to be honest, my rule of thumb is that only reviews from outlets with Wikipedia articles are significant, since anyone can make a website to write reviews). I generally support more episode articles, but I just don't see enough coverage here. However, the title is a reasonable redirect term (though it should be moved to "Pop of the Tops – Live: The Rusical").RunningTiger123 (talk)04:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support drafting en masse all these pointlessDrag Race episode stubs and later evaluating each one before being accepted. Most of theDrag Race episode articles Another Believer wrote are just bare bones episode summary articles. Whether or not those episodes have enough sources and content to justify their stand-alone article is irrelevant when their current state (and often times, years in the same state) is better handled by the episode list.Dragazines is an example of such (bad) article. In 2025 we should have a higher bar for accepting articles and these pointless stubs are not it.Gonnym (talk)09:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the variety of different publications in the references providing coverage for this episode specifically seems to meet the guidelines, although arguing against what was said above about what counts as significant coverage. Along with the majority of drag race related episodes recently turned into redirects, i believe this one is details and sourced well enough in comparison to remainHighlandFacts (talk)02:49, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Clearly notable and I am working to expand the article. Four otherDrag Race UK episode articles have been nominated for deletion; I've already significantly expandedRats: The Rusical and will work on the others as soon as possible. These are unnecessary jumps to AfD. ---Another Believer(Talk)20:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a vague wave to GNG. Since we are at AfD, could you explain which of the sources (presumably from the ones you are now adding) count towards GNG? Thanks.Sirfurboy🏄 (talk)14:53, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an awards program, notproperly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, awards are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to passWP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them and their significance -- but this is referencedentirely to the awards' ownself-published content about themselves, with not even one hit of GNG-worthy media coverage about them shown at all. This has existed for four years as a redirect toBrunico Communications, the company that stages and hosts these awards, so obviously that can be reinstated if desired -- but this article, as written and sourced, has not demonstrated the notability needed to get its own standalone article separately from the parent organization.Bearcat (talk)14:33, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toBrunico Communications per nom. There are 15 citations in this article, 14 of which are to kidscreen.com -- the website of the award and its organizer. The only independent source cited doesn't actually support the sentence that it is being used to support; specifically,this Animation Magazine article says nothing about a red carpet reception or hosted entertainment. --Metropolitan90(talk)17:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: ALL seasons to the main page about the show, these really should have been batch nominated, they're all in the same format (primary sourcing with nothing else for notability)Oaktree b (talk)00:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- He is a real actor with verified and somewhat important roles in notable films. Having significant roles in several notable production films and tv series then he meets WP:NACTOR.— Precedingunsigned comment added byVertiasArchivist3 (talk •contribs)17:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence supporting the claim that any of these roles were leading roles. Across the television series, he appeared in only a single episode for all but one show. Additionally, two of the films do not credit him prominently in the cast listing, and while one film lists him in the third position, this placement alone does not indicate a leading role. Furthermore, even if he did have one or two leading roles in lesser-known films or series, this would still be insufficient to meet NACTOR's criteria.Kyunde (talk)09:16, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge withCleto Escobedo III - A merge can straighten out a few group-level activities like their guest appearances, but there is very little to merge otherwise because (as stated by a previous voter) the article is almost entirely about Cleto and there is already more robust info about his career at his own article. The group as a whole has not achieved notability in their own right, beyond their leader. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS)13:24, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does the band continue on after the death ofCleto Escobedo III? If so, a redirect to him wouldn't make sense. There’s a bunch of bands under Category:Radio and television house bands that seem similar in notability to this one. House bands for major television shows, particularly those with individually notable members likeJimmy Earl, the bassist of the Cletones, seem to warrant their own Wikipedia articles.Thriley (talk)21:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is a clear consensus to Merge but no agreement on the target article. Please work on resolving this dispute and settle on one article to Merge to. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,LizRead!Talk!03:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep in addition to the above mentioned role, he had a lead role in3:33 (film) and a pivotal role inThanimai[62][63][64]. The COI can easily be reworded and I have reworded some of it. Rename the article toSandy (choreographer), "Master" is an adjective for choreographer in India. Literally credited as just Sandy here[65]. Furthermore, before those roles he is known as a choreographer and not an actor.DareshMohan (talk)06:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sandy Master meets notability guidelines through significant coverage in independent reliable sources, including multiple film publications and national television exposure (Bigg Boss Tamil). He has appeared in notable films in Tamil and Malayalam cinema. The article can be improved, but it clearly passesWP:NFILM andWP:NTV. Deletion is unnecessary.~2025-36366-55 (talk)18:00, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
