Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Entertainment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting
(Redirected from Wikipedia:DSENTERTAINMENT)
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

Lineysha Sparx

edit
Lineysha Sparx (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)

Does not pass GNG. The only piece of in-depth, independent coverage of this person is an interview from 2013 in Hotspots Magazine. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In my view she meets category one of WP:ENTERTAINER by having appeared on all three of RuPaul's Drag Race, Untucked! and also Skin Wars. On top of that, she also has some supplementary grounds for notability on the second ground: 2. "The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". Sparx co-created a drag plush doll, Lil' Poundcake, which has been the subject of enduring coverage and was also recently featured on RPDR All Stars. Some of that coverage re-discusses Sparx's run on the show, or even refers to her in the headline - and these articles come even from many years after her original appearance on Drag Race: see e.g. this 2021 article. The doll toy she co-created is "prolific" insofar as Chappell Roan has attributed it as inspiration for her drag performance look style. Over a decade after her original RPDR appearance, Roan is very much innovative and on the cutting edge of LGBTQ+ music and entertainment, so to me that is at least somewhat a 'prolific' contribution under the second criterion. When you combine the mentions of her as the co-creator of the Lil Poundcake Doll together with appearing on three reality TV shows, I think it's enough to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, even if narrowly. FlipandFlopped ツ 18:02, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER and Flipandflopped above. There's enough coverage to justify a standalone article, which should be expanded and improved instead of deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:10, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Nightclub

edit
Opera Nightclub (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)

Orphan article authored in 2013, with an unaddressed maintenance tag for lack of notability also dating to 2013. Created and overwhelmingly most heavily edited (3/4 of its content) by an author with a conflict of interest. Subject venue closed in 2019[1] and is therefore unlikely ever to receive coverage that would confer notability. Wikipedia is not a compendium of every nightclub that has ever existed. Damon Killian (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better Than You Bay Bay

edit
Better Than You Bay Bay (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)

AEW tag team where they wrestled together for only two months. One singles main event at All In is not good enough for an article. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cage of Agony

edit
Cage of Agony (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)

Pretty much the same content as in Mogul Embassy and Gates of Agony. Suggest redirect to either of them. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of NXT

edit
Kings of NXT (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)

Short-lived WWE NXT stable that does not require an article. Suggest redirecting to Pat McAfee. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 13:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support redirect to Pat. No in-deep coverage about the stable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Unicorn Gundam

edit
Statue of Unicorn Gundam (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)

Boldly merged and BLARed this to Mobile Suit Gundam Unicorn but was reverted. I do not think this statue warrants a standalone article. There is barely any meaningful content here; the article more closely resembles an entry in a travel guide for prospective tourists than an encyclopedia article, and the topic can be amply covered within the article about the series (edit: as I discussed later in the AfD following additional edits to the article, I think it would fit best as a section of DiverCity Tokyo Plaza) or on the Cultural impact of Gundam page (or both). silviaASH (inquire within) 13:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Addendum: The article has certainly improved, but I still think that the content in its current state would be better served as a subsection of another article where the topic can be given more thorough context.) silviaASH (inquire within) 14:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Comics and animation, Anime and manga, Entertainment, Travel and tourism, Popular culture, and Japan. silviaASH (inquire within) 13:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG and HEY. Re: "There is barely any meaningful content here" -- WP:SOFIXIT! This nomination is a statement about the current state of the article, not the amount of coverage the subject has received. I'm not convinced WP:BEFORE was completed and this should probably have started with an article talk page discussion. I've added quite a few sources to the article, which should be expanded and improved, not deleted. I also see there are quite a few non-English sources, if any multilingual editors are able to review. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did look up the subject before nominating- I didn't see an extraordinary amount of coverage. While the subject does clearly satisfy GNG, I still don't think it meets WP:PAGEDECIDE, even after the improvements that have been made. I just don't think there's that much to say about the topic that can't slot neatly into a section on Cultural impact of Gundam or DiverCity Tokyo Plaza, both articles which themselves could use some improvement. silviaASH (inquire within) 15:39, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "the subject does clearly satisfy GNG" is a reason to keep the article. Instead of worrying about how to update multiple articles about the topic, I think it makes more sense to focus on updating this article, so I'll keep workin' on it! ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    ...significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, I went and looked at the sources that have been added more closely, and while it's evident that there's more to talk about in regards to the statue than I may have initially thought, I still think that all of this information would be better off merged into the DiverCity Tokyo Plaza article. Many of the currently cited sources ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) only mention the statue trivially, in a long list of other recommended tourist spots. They say it's cool and everything (don't get me wrong, the statue is very cool and I'd personally love to go see it), but don't really address it in detail, so I don't think all of these qualify as WP:SIGCOV. The sources which do address the topic significantly ([15], [16], [17], [18]) do shed more light on the creation and establishment of the statue as an attraction and the motives for its construction, but I think all of this information could be summed up in about a paragraph within the DiverCity article. Two of the sources are just mirrors of one another ([19], [20]).
    Finally, the last couple of citations ([21], [22]) don't really talk about the statue itself so much as they talk about the place where the statue happens to be. The SoraNews source, in particular, primarily uses the Unicorn Gundam as the lead to talk about the DiverCity Plaza as a whole, and its many Gundam attractions. This is also the case with several of the 13 citations that mention the statue trivially- they do it within sentences (sometimes even within the same sentence) of bringing it up as the main attraction at the DiverCity Plaza. The headline of the paragraph in this source, just to name one of them, says as the heading of the paragraph in which the statue is acknowledged, Gundam-themed mall opened in Tokyo. This is a clear and consistent pattern even in the sources which acknowledge the statue non-trivially- they primarily discuss it as the centerpiece of DiverCity, and its numerous other Gundam-related attractions.
    This is why I think the statue isn't independently notable. It isn't ever discussed independently of the mall. For this reason, I think it would be best (again, per WP:PAGEDECIDE), to merge the contents of the article into the DiverCity Tokyo Plaza article, and discuss it as the primary attraction of that area. Being discussed in a standalone article means that readers are missing the context of the statue's ultimate purpose, which is to attract people to the mall and hopefully get them to purchase a Gunpla. silviaASH (inquire within) 21:25, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. We'll have to agree to disagree, but for now I've added several additional news sources specifically focused on the statue and I'll continue to tinker at the article as I have time. Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe redirect to DiverCity Tokyo Plaza, which already has a paragraph on this. This is a statue at a shopping mall with no sign that this is a significant monument. Asparagusstar (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I'm not sure if we have a notability guideline for statues or art installations or attractions (though, if we do, I'd definitely like to know about it), but this likewise seems to me to not be independently notable of the DiverCity Plaza. silviaASH (inquire within) 20:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd say since WP:ARTIST has standards like "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" or "The person's work has become a significant monument," then notability for an individual work of art would have similar standards. This statue is not a significant new concept, doesn't display significant new techniques, isn't a significant monument, etc. Asparagusstar (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily meets notability requirements with lots of coverage in RS. APK hi :-) (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The DiverCity Tokyo Plaza article seems quite underdeveloped. Is there any reason these articles couldn't be merged? I think this needs someone to check through Japanese sources to establish the notability of both subjects. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per APK, easily meets GNG and HEY. Lots of adequate sourcing on the page. Seems the fact that it is exhibited at a shopping mall is being used as a negative of some kind. Many statues are in malls, airports, etc., public places where people gather are fine venues for artwork. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Been thinking I may have made a mistake in opening an AfD (I jumped to that thinking it was necessary because of the reversed BLAR) and I should have opened a merge proposal discussion instead. I still don't think the article meets PAGEDECIDE, but I ought to have given more consideration to if AfD was the appropriate venue for that concern. Anyway, at this point I think I don't support deletion in any case, with the clear improvements the article has received, this should be either kept or merged. If this AfD closes as keep I'll wait a bit for development to happen and perhaps consider discussing a merge down the line if I feel that my criticisms remain relevant. silviaASH (inquire within) 11:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a full and improved page shouldn't be merged, as the only reason for a merge would be its location and not judging the artwork on its own merits. Commendable comment, not every nominator (far from it) will reconsider their nom during a useful discussion, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)a[reply]
  • Weak keep. Right now it's not very big, but there is enough coverage for this to merit stand-alone article. I expect more sources could be found in Japanese. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to DiverCity Tokyo Plaza per Asparagusstar if no sources are found. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Off-TV Play

edit
Off-TV Play (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)

An attempted bold merge of the article was reverted, but rather than start a merge discussion I am starting an AfD instead due to my serious notability concerns. This article would seem to fail WP:GNG as there are no secondary sources that appear to talk specifically about Off-TV Play as a feature as opposed to the Wii U console as a whole or its controllers. Looking at the sources given upon the article's creation, they are all Wii U console reviews and not much seems to have changed. Notability is not inherited; that is a core tenet of notability, so a feature does not become notable solely because the device it is on is notable. Furthermore, with devices like the PlayStation Portal, the feature cannot be said to be unique any longer either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wii U GamePad This is just an feature of the Wii U GamePad- not notable enough for an independent article. TzarN64 (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this were just the list of games that supported Off-TV play, it would clearly be reasonable, and would not be appropriate to merge back to Wii U or other articles. That more can be added to discuss development and its reception such that it is more than just a list seems to make sense to have this as its own article separate from the console or controller. Masem (t) 17:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:SOURCESEXIST, please cite where the development information and major reception is. So far there has only been one cited source solely about the Off-TV Play feature. Re: Articles about the gamepad, there is already a gamepad article of course. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 01:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please re-read their comment, they did not make a SOURCESEXIST violating argument in the first place. Sergecross73 msg me 13:01, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wii U Gamepad. This subject is almost entirely tied to its usage in the Gamepad, and is reflected in nearly all of the coverage. The bulk of arguments for keeping do not take into account Wikipedia:NOPAGE, which very strongly applies to this situation given the subject overlap, which would allow for a greater understanding of both subjects if they were to be discussed together. A separate article is not necessary in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Central Operatic Society

edit
Central Operatic Society (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)

Completely unnotable. Searching it up yields 71 results on google, with none being anything that would indicate any form of notability. Absolutely zero significant coverage by outside sources. Article is also quite promotional, and at times reads like an advert. Article is also extraordinarily outdated, listing events in 2018 as upcoming. Gaismagorm (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Man Power Trip

edit
Two-Man Power Trip (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)

WWF team lasting less than two months. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lasted that length due to injury to Triple H but in that two months, was a very significant part of their programming in early-mid 2001. No. It does not get deleted. Russ Jericho (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Russ Jericho: Could you explain the significance of the team with reliable sources (check WP:PW/RS)? BinaryBrainBug (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://prowrestling.fandom.com/wiki/The_Power_Trip 67.198.117.6 (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Styles and Christopher Daniels

edit
A.J. Styles and Christopher Daniels (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)

TNA team lasting just six months with very short title reigns. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Seems to rely on limited sources. May be better transfer some of this to AJ Styles main page and delete the article. Ramos1990 (talk)
It's not a redirect !vote if you're saying to delete the article. I'm not sure whether you want a redirect, merge, or delete? Your !vote seems to advocate for all three. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I beleive redirecting means the article ceases to exist, and is thus redirected to another article. Ramos1990 (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Short title reigns and tag team of the year is not good enough. For example, Kane and X-Pac, Kofi Kingston and R-Truth does not and should not have articles even though they were champions and won the award. Most of the content in this article seems excessive. The most significant part is their matches with America's Most Wanted and LAX, but that is summarized well in both men's articles. See AJ Styles#X Division Champion (2004–2007) and Christopher Daniels#X Division Champion (2005–2007). BinaryBrainBug (talk) 07:52, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Testament

edit
The Final Testament (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)

Short-lived team with no significant achievements. BinaryBrainBug (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The achievements are not really a must for an article to exist. However, I would vote Soft delete. The stable just was active for 1 year and most part of the sources are WP:ROUTINE results, with no in-deep focus on the stable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On a second though, I will support a redirect to Karrios Kross too. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rise East Entertainment

edit
Rise East Entertainment (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)

Sources are related to the respective films produced by the subject and do not provide any coverage of the production house itself. None of the sources in the article provide significant coverage of the subject. Subject does not meet WP:NCORP or WP:SIGCOV. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

edit
Navrajvir Singh (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)

Lacks Notability. Given Sources are primary. No significant coverage in Independent Sources. Rahmatula786 (talk) 09:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AI generated comment, no point in keeping it. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Navrajvir Singh does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guideline (WP:GNG) or the specific criteria for biographies (WP:BIO). There are no significant independent, reliable sources providing sustained coverage. Any existing sources are either trivial mentions, primary, or promotional. Since the subject does not qualify for a merge, redirect, or draftification, deletion is the most appropriate course of action."*
  • Additionally, Singh does not meet the criteria outlined in Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons policy (WP:BIO), which sets specific standards for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a directory of all individuals, and biographical articles must demonstrate clear significance based on independent reporting. If the subject is an athlete, artist, or professional, they must satisfy the notability requirements for their specific field—such as WP:NFOOTY for footballers or WP:ENT for entertainers. Based on the evidence available, Singh does not fulfill any of these thresholds.
  • Moreover, Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy (WP:V) states that content must be backed by reliable, published sources independent of the subject. If an article primarily relies on self-published sources, social media, press releases, or routine news coverage, it does not meet the standards required for an encyclopedic entry. Even if some sources exist, if they fail to provide substantive analysis or historical significance, they do not contribute to establishing the subject's long-term notability.
  • Considering these issues, alternative solutions such as redirecting, merging, or draftifying the article are not viable. There is no existing article where merging the content would be appropriate, nor does the subject warrant draftification since the fundamental issue is a lack of independent, verifiable coverage, not just article quality. Since Wikipedia’s purpose is to document topics of lasting encyclopedic interest, an article on Navrajvir Singh does not align with the project’s inclusion criteria.
  • For these reasons, I strongly support the deletion of this article. It does not meet Wikipedia’s core content policies, and keeping it would set a poor precedent for notability standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4085:AEC6:5C40:609:8204:AA49:31DC (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

X Factor (Bulgarian TV series)

edit
X Factor (Bulgarian TV series) (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)

Content already exists in the main The X Factor article. Some of the analysis and detail here would appear to constitute WP:OR. Variety312 (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother: The Boss

edit
Big Brother: The Boss (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)

Content already exists on Big Brother (franchise) article. Stand alone article does not meet wp:GNG. Variety312 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind slowing down television-related AfDs, please? and in particular, if you suggest redirects or merging, you can start a discussion on the TPs of the concerned pages. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 00:35, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:27, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother Panamá

edit
Big Brother Panamá (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)

No substantive wp:RS were found during WP:Before. Content already exists on larger article about Big Brother (franchise). Variety312 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor – A sziget

edit
Survivor – A sziget (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)

Lots of edits since 2011 by no WP:RS. merge with larger article on Survivor television program. Survivor (franchise) Variety312 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 30 March 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=1283329383"