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.
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:
Upon review of article and its sources, the person in question does not meet the notability guidelines in question: the person is not (1) cited by 3rd party sources other than websites that repeat his bio as an official founder of Samuel Adams beer (2) known for originating a new concept [see point #1] (3) become a significant monument, etc. (4) He is not cited as by peers and 3rd party sources for the work that is well-known or significant. The article was written by a blocked user and could primarily serve the purpose of self promotion as defined in WP:NOTADVERT. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk)
Hi Folks, My apologies, I actually meant to nominate Harry Rubin (virologist) Late night editing got the best of me. Upon a 2nd look at this article in particular, I found new reputable secondary sources to that show indeed this Harry Rubin was indeed a Samuel Adams co-founder. I'm closing going to close this deletion nomination in favor of doing some work to improve the article itself. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 04:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe delete both of them.
Being a minor, behind-the-scenes partner of a business does not make someone notable.
Nominated (diff) by 173.175.200.238 for the following reason: Although I see that state legislators are "presumed" to have notability, my understanding is that under WP:GNG that is not guaranteed. In this specific case, the person in question was only in office for less than a day, appointed to fill in for someone who resigned. I have no opinion of my own at this time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, speedy close. With respect to WP:NPOL the fact that he did serve is backed up by reliable (yet primary) sources in the article. With respect to the other reason the subject is known, I'll give the best[a]WP:THREE so far:
Given the above and the fact that the subject did hold office (albeit extremely briefly), I would also look to the guidance on WP:NOPAGE and think there's an argument that, even if all the sourcing stopped today,[b] there is still justification for a standalone permanent stub. I think we can take the weight of presumably from WP:NPOL and the argument from the basic criteria that says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;" such that, combined, there is reason to believe the subject notable here.
Further, I do believe there is precedent for NPOL, especially at the state level, requiring less SIGCOV than the GNG would otherwise require. This, I believe, is the main justification of the IP's argument for deletion, and the weight given to presumed. This argument is made with respect to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that the fact that the many politician state level stub categories exist and that the articles in those categories are presumed notable with minimal sourcing should demonstrate the implicit consensus about the required threshold for notability of senators at the state level. microbiologyMarcus[petri dish·growths]14:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^I say best knowing the tabloid nature of the present list at the time of writing, giving it truly in the spirit of WP:THREE, "Be honest with yourself about how good they are."
^While there is no crystal ball, as the current champion, it is likely there will be further coverage, adding to the breadth of trivial coverage. I don't make a WP:TOOSOON argument here, as it would cut both ways: the subject loses soon, it's not likely to get more coverage; the subject continues to win, coverage would be expected to continue.
This was REFUNDED after soft deletion from the previous AfD. My rationale is still very much intact. This subject fails WP:GNGorWP:NCREATOR. Sources, with a partial exception of The Nation, are all paid and promotional puff. I also suspect UPE going on here. Sources from BEFORE are also paid puff.
See source analysis below;
paid promotional puff ("Oga Amos’s commitment and talent haven’t gone unnoticed, earning him well-deserved awards that acknowledge his substantial contributions to the dynamic world of online entertainment.", really? Only one non-notable award?)
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Delete: Same as last time, stuff in non-RS or puff pieces, nothing we can use for notability. The before is the most telling, there just isn't enough about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this article is deceptively written, creating an initial impression that it meets the criteria of WP:NCORP unless scrutinized closely. Critically fails WP:ORGCRIT, There is not even a single source from the article or WP:BEFORE to establish any context of notability. Being a nominee of The Beatz Awards is not significant enough to make it presumptively notable. Over all, fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: winning a non-notable award isn't notable, the rest of the sources are puffy entertainment/lifestyle sources, not really helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV(both in the Nigerian media and in foreign ones). At least you can look at the Nigerian Wikipedia article and find several sources. I’m not sure about WP:NMUSIC, but it’s not the main criteria anyway. Tau Corvi (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : If an Award has been reviewed, has a Wikipedia page and meets the WP:GNG then it’s notable. But reference from reliable source that are independent of the subject are needed to be cited for proof. The fact he has Won, being Nominated for notable awards, contributed to the notable movie Suga Suga (film) as an executive producer makes him passes WP:ANYBIO and notable. Per source cited on the article, subject passes WP:GNG. If the award section can be addressed then my vote is a Keep. Please to the AFD nominator theirs no point responding to me. I’m not here to argue unreasonably or pick sides. My word still stands per Wikipedia article guideline.--Gabriel(talk to me )19:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the coverage in the article is from February 2024 when she left the entertainment company Nijisanji. Beyond that, I've found two reliable sources that do not cover this topic (Siliconera 1, Siliconera 2). Wikipedia's notability criteria discourages articles on people notable for only one event, which this article seems to cover. Most of the content featured in the article also seems to be a content fork of the article Nijisanji. I suggest deleting the article or turning it into a redirect to the Nijisanji article. ArcticSeeress (talk) 08:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure but want a definitive consensus on the notability of this TV series. First off, the article doesn't meet our guideline per WP:NFP–there is totally a decline of SIGCOV, or maybe because I didn't find either, but I tried searching only to see release dates announcements, etc, and thus, doesn't satisfy WP:SIRS.
On another note, I found out that the additional criteria WP:NFO, and WP:NFIC may push for the userfication, given thoughts that it may still meet notability at the highest release (seems like it has been released), and because it started notable actors and actresses. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!06:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added a few things for verification; a lot of so-so coverage exists (in Turkish, English) and, although not great, it seems to show some attention to the production. Notable cast. A redirect to producer/network is imv warranted, so very opposed to deletion.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)14:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, if there was a Redirect, what would the target article be? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it was one of most popular shows of the last season of Turkish TV. Don't have time to look now but I'm sure episodes received significance reviews, attention etc. Tehonk (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disputed PROD. My PROD rationale still stands, notability isn't automatic or inherited. There are so many awards out there that are being awarded to entities but an award's significance isn't solely determined by the prestige of the awarding entity or the notable recipients. Instead, verifiable evidence from reliable sources is required to substantiate claims of notability. These sources must specifically focus on the award itself, providing in-depth information. Sources primarily highlighting award recipients rather than the award itself don't establish notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedly Keep: Article meets wikipedia:Notability, Also meets GNG, all the source are reliable, independent sources and it’s not inherited Notability, i suggest the nominator searches the topic and read through the article, as it’s a Gospel niche award and has multiple references from reliable source, the nominator has always been on my watch and nominates all my article for deletion and i think it’s likely a bad faith nomination but I’ll love to hear from other editors, thanks Madeforall1 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I find the idea that sources need to "specifically focus on the award" as overly strict; if major independent outlets are choosing to cover the announcement of nominees and winners, that conveys a degree of significance to those awards. In other words, there may not be significant coverage of the awards as an organization, but there is significant coverage of them as an event. Having worked a fair amount with TV and film award articles, I think this is in line with other examples (as an example, see Los Angeles Film Critics Association, which is basically just about the awards presented by the organization – the sources cover the ceremonies/nominees/winners, not the organization). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the caveat that I don't know enough about Nigerian media to say if the sources here are generally reliable, but since that wasn't the issue raised in the nomination, I'm assuming they are. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see how covering the award itself is a strict measure. How then do we measure the significance of a subject? There are so many awards out there that are being awarded to recipients at events, that aren’t notable awards, even campus/college/university awards are also being awarded at ceremonies, I don’t see how that generally counts towards establishing GNG. These coupled with the fact that most of these pieces from the sources used are just overly promotional and unreliable, WP:GNG isn’t anywhere closely established. Also, using Los Angeles Film Critics Association is a poor comparison, you can’t exactly say an award that has been awarded for over 30 years won’t satisfy GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces, You have dropped your comments before sir why dropping more and attacking someone that dropped his votes and options? As said notable independent news sites have covered more about the event over time and I think in creating articles, it’s shows how notable the award is and it’s not just school or private organization award but an award for gospel artist, as sources is not notable based on the number of references. Madeforall1 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Madeforall1 Your comment above is nonsensical because it adds no value to this discussion. You’re literally badgering already and I’ve been playing along with you from your talk page to mine. My comments above were presented in line with this discussion, yours wasn’t and isn’t exactly useful to the discussion. Please stop this poor attitude of yours. Do not ping me if you have nothing useful to add to this discussion, I don’t want to be notified of your poorly presented comments. You’re already giving the vibe of both UPE and COI, and that’s probably the reason you’re upset because an article you created got AfDed. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces Is this how you insult people? You don’t deserve to be a reviewer, you are just attacking everyone, you do everything with bad faith, I don’t think you deserve the privileges you got here, you are even a new editor and yet you talk to people carelessly, desist from such act and listen to people, I wonder if you know everything. Madeforall1 (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Madeforall1: Do you have any sort of relationship with the subject of this article? I agree with Vanderwaalforces, your editing pattern is often indicative of undisclosed paid editing or a more general conflict of interest. If you do have a conflict of interest, whether you're being directly compensated for your edits or not, you have to disclose it. Not doing so could result in you being blocked from editing. Also, comments like yours above could be taken as personal attacks, so I suggest you strike them out. Please reply to this message confirming whether or not you have a COI with Kingdom Achievers Award. CFA💬04:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA, I don’t have any conflict of interests nor connected to the subject, but it’s also not nice for a particular user not to improve and article instead of constantly give bad faith reviews, else I don’t know the subject but I know the award and I’ve seen many gospel artists that have received awards which the references are also added to there articles on Wikipedia so I choose to write about the award. Madeforall1 (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CFA I will advise you don’t be in support of bad government. I have gone through this discussion and the person who is wrong here is the AFD nominator. He started the personal attack. The article creator was just all about why the nominator is after his life and all I can see here was the Nominator using offensive language on him or her and you expect such a person not to feel bad. Like C’mon. One thing I will not tolerate here on Wikipedia is making other editors feel bad when they have no intention to harm the platform even if they don’t know why they are here. And I don’t care what you have to say if the truth can’t be told. Sometimes this kind of habit makes those who create articles feel like they have got something like a COI to do with the subject which they might be innocent. They are ways of catching people with COI and not by insulting them and they trying to defend themselves makes them now a COI. I am very far away from supporting bad government. Who knows if those editors went to acquire user level permission just to punish other people or make other people worship them? Who knows if they take money too to edit?. I have no business with what they said on their User page about Paid editing. Because even sock accounts do lie as well they have no other account. As for the article creator. I will advise you stay calm and do what is right here on Wikipedia by following it’s guidelines. I have already advised you before but you thought you now know better while speaking on the AFD discussion of Funnybros. I saw the user permission you are now after to. But it’s of no need base on your editing experience. Keep doing what is right here on Wikipedia and have a nice day. As for your article I will check if it’s a keep, delete or I don’t say anything and let other editors do their research. Gabriel(talk to me )19:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are lots of non-significant awards like university awards, but you're not going to see significant coverage of those winners and nominees in major newspapers (aside from maybe a human-interest story, but the references here aren't that), so I don't really see what you're getting at. If newspapers are independently choosing to report on winners and nominees – and as far as I can tell, the references are independently written, not paid promotions, even if the loaded language can feel a bit promotional-y – that conveys significance to those awards relative to other awards. (As to your LAFCA rebuttal, awards can exist for decades and still not be notable. Depth of coverage, not longevity, is what matters.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article having significant coverage of the event means nothing for notability. What matters is significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources. An article could be 20 000 words long and cover everything about the topic and still not be notable. CFA💬23:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Don't let the page title distract you. What matters is if there should be an article here about this subject. Renaming doesn't require an AfD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen×☎15:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Per nominator reason. Award was just even established in 2022 that means two years ago and annually show up. It is very hard to be called it notable for now as it hasn’t gotten enough significant coverage from independent reliable source rather than the event hold announcement and inheriting of nomination list because they nominated notable people. It can be notable in the future that is if they still exist by then. Meanwhile, they are other Awards Notable here on Wikipedia being won by Nigerian Gospel singers. So am not sure this is the only award to qualify a gospel singer.--Gabriel(……?)20:00, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel601, Notability in this case is not achieved from how long an establishment has been in existence but how well known the establishment has become in the space, an establishment of 1 month can even gain notability than the one that has existed for decades, Well all the sources listed on the article are All from reputable and reliable news sources which was organically written based on the prestige of the awards, Before I wrote about this article, I strongly believe it’s an annual event that has come to stay which amounts to the fact the Awards meets WP:GNG, There's a WP:SIGCOV in the references too and these facts qualifies an article to be on Wikipedia for a valid reasonMadeforall1 (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you strongly believe that they have come to stay. That means you seems to have a connection or sort of conflict of interest with the said subject. They must have told you they have come to stay for you to be a spokesperson this way. I will advise you don’t bother responding to me because you won’t get a reply this time again. I understand someone can just wake up one morning and become notable. Yeah that is possible. But not for the category of an award. Gabriel(……?)08:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve seen the nature of your edits and all your bad faith, you feel you are an admin or you can say anything you feel? Can you create an article you know nothing about? @Gabriel601, I only create articles I find notable, it is clearly written on reliable sources that it’s an annual awards and have serval editions, and secondly stop the personal attacks, I saw what you did when I tried to request a permission. Desist from that. Madeforall1 (talk) 09:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling someone's editing bad faith could be taken as a personal attack. I would recommend striking that out. CFA💬14:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As well the 2011 piece by Lyn Gardner of The Guardian which is referenced in the article, searches also find a 2019 piece by the same author. It is partly an interview with the co-founder of LADA, but starts with the writer's overview of the Live Art field and evaluation of LADA's role in it. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following doesn't contribute to notability here, but I will also note that the present article doesn't mention organisational controversy during 2023 (news item discussing the closure threat and petition). AllyD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vote against deletion. While the article has issues, they aren't based on notability. It is clearly a well-cited and long running organisation that is important the UK cultural scene. The article could more clearly lay out the history and challenges of the org, as mentioned above, but this doesn't warrant deletion. genericxz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator has invoked WP:NCORP, however from this link [3] we see that the subject is a charity, therefore WP:NONPROFIT applies. It is not necessary for the subject to meet the more stringent guidelines put in place for corporate entities. On this basis - in particular including from the arguments above - there does appear sufficient coverage and citations of the activities of this charity to have a reasonable presumption of notability. ResonantDistortion22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
paid promotional puff
