Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Entertainment

Shortcuts

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:

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|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:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Entertainment/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Entertainment

Tanzyn Crawford

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

Fails WP:ACTOR NonfrostClive (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Entertainment, and Australia. NonfrostClive (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Disruptive pointy nomination. Two significant roles in notable productions is good for NACTOR. Multiple examples of coverage in independent reliable sources. Targeted payback nominations. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla Rountree

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. NonfrostClive (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, Entertainment, and Australia. NonfrostClive (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Disruptive pointy nomination. Two significant roles in notable productions is good for NACTOR. Focus of coverage in major newspaper (independent reliable source). National Library of Australia has a box of cuttings. AFI Award nominee. Targeted payback nominations. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Grives

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

Fails GNG. Nothing to satisfy WP:ACTOR. NonfrostClive (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and Australia. NonfrostClive (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Disruptive pointy nomination. Multiple significant roles in notable productions. Lots of coverage in independent reliable sources. Targeted payback nominations. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NACTOR point 1. Significant roles in multiple notable productions: here (TV series, main character), here (prominent supporting character), here (soap opera, main character), here (film villain) and here (series regular) – among others. Additionally, the Canberra Times and TAWW sources give detailed independent coverage (WP:SIGCOV). He also won an Australian theatre award in 2005. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously Funny

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

Non-notable comedy film whose sources are IMDb, YouTube and Amazon. CPDJay (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and United States of America. CPDJay (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's chat-gpt created if to look at the url endings of the so called sources. --Cinder painter (talk) 14:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kevin Hart as an WP:ATD-R. The reviews are sources to IMDb, and my search for reviews is not coming back with anything from WP:RS. -2pou (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Secondary Ticket Agents

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

Declined prod that was redirected to Financial Services Authority. I don't believe it should be redirected to an article which doesn't even refer to it. This article was created by a single purpose editor and unreferenced since 2008. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Business. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

16 Entertainment

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

Its founder Alex Wilhelm is notable, but this company of his has no significant coverage in WP:RS. Hmr (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Hmr (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing notable as sources do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. An WP:ATD could be a redirect to founder but that is assuming he is notable. There are also COI concerns and while those do not bear on the AfD, it would be appropriate to check notability on the founder as opposed to assuming he is. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I spit into the wind. Even the nominator agrees the founder is notable, and so there is commonsense need for a bluelink here to direct toward that article. Once again...these do not need to come to AfD. A merge request is the appropriate venue. Chubbles (talk) 04:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I, myself, like to live dangerously. lol. I took a close look and not so sure he does although I will not nominate it during this AfD so as not to seem bludgeoning. He has one in-depth piece in Billboard but it is part of 40/40. The rest seems to be mentions or routine coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 40/40 disqualifies the piece, other Billboard coverage is also strong. Maybe Alex Wilhelm is on edge of notability, I'm leaning more toward notable. There's reference spam here too - worth a major clean up. Hmr (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your contention and you may be right. I took another look and think I will take to AfD after this is over here. Again, don't want it to come across as disruptive. I basically see him on a bunch of lists but nothing I can find says he would be notable for being on such lists. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alex Wilhelm - I don't see any worthwhile material in this article that isn't already in the Wilhelm article, so while I would normally suggest a merge, I don't see what it would accomplish in this case. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WormEater13 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alex Wilhelm - The topic itself unable to meet SIGCOV and unable to demonstrate notability of a company. CresiaBilli (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Conglomeration

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

Short-lived faction with little to no significance. Members no longer affiliated according to AEW roster website and probably would not be brought back. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was tempted many times to propose the article. Short lived stable, no in-deep reliable sources about it. I dont know the obsesion of AEW with stables. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are shorter articles with less significance. This faction technically has not even disbanded, two of the "former" members are wrestling on the same team in a match tonight. All of the former members (except one who works full time in Japan) are still active in AEW. This article shouldn't be anywhere near deletion. SwitchMIX (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable in my opinion. Lemonademan22 (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The last two comments are not valid arguments at AfD, see WP:ATA. Could we please get some analysis of available sources (or lack thereof) w.r.t. the GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 22:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike I could work on the article and flesh it out more perhaps. I still regard it as notable. Lemonademan22 (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lemonademan22 Which three best sources show that this subject is notable? At AfD, we don't care much about the quality of the article, we care mostly about whether sources show the topic is notable. Toadspike [Talk] 12:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Toadspike Well I do not know, I suppose all of them? Lemonademan22 (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bold claim. The first two I've checked [1][2] don't actually mention this group by name. Toadspike [Talk] 13:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about these two? [3] [4] Lemonademan22 (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I assume this would fall under WP:NORG? I looked through all of the sources on the page as it is now, and only this one and that one are close to providing sigcov. Possible ATD is draftify to see if they come back, but other wise I don't see it. Moritoriko (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Paragon (professional wrestling)

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

Duplicate of The Undisputed Era. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

been told that until there's a reliable source that indicates paragon is a contiuation the undisputed era its own article is for the best for now Imdeadinside12 (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Imdeadinside12 What source would that be? Lemonademan22 (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what you said on the Undisputed Era talk page? Imdeadinside12 (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Imdeadinside12 Negative. I said it would be a better option to make a seperate article than continue The Undisputed Era one as tha would be original resarch. Lemonademan22 (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn’t that what happened tho? So what’s the proble? Imdeadinside12 (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Imdeadinside12 I do not know. I didn't nominate the article for deletion. You would have to ask the nominator that question. Lemonademan22 (talk) 22:14, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

like Lemonademan22 said i think it would be best to keep it a seperate article than continue the UE one since that would be original research but we can easily merge this with the UE when a reliable source says otherwise. Imdeadinside12 (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the idea of having separate article, as one of the few reliable sources Fightful [5] claims that they are continuation of Undisputed Kingdom and related to Undisputed Era. It is a similar case like The Hurt Syndicate. Even if it was untrue, currently the article only has a couple of sentences in faction history and is too soon to be notable enough. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:15, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary redirect to The Undisputed Era Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 03:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah i agree with binary, especially since he found a reliable source Imdeadinside12 (talk) 14:59, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions

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

Entertainment

Categories