Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:08, 19 January 2022

• WP:DSENTERTAINMENT
• WP:DSENTER

Points of interest related to Entertainment on Misplaced Pages: Category – WikiProject – Deletions – Stubs

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk)Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

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 {{Misplaced Pages: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 {{Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Entertainment/archive

Entertainment

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. RL0919 (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The Company (production company)

The Company (production company) (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 unsourced since 2013; does not meet WP:NCOMPANY, WP:GNG. I can find no coverage of this company. Admittedly, searching for "The Company" is rather difficult, considering the generic name. The only indication that I can find that this company even exists is from their Facebook page. – Pbrks  18:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks  18:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks  18:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Pbrks  18:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 19:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of people in Playboy 2000–2009#2007. ✗plicit 11:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Heather Rene Smith

Heather Rene Smith (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)

Biography for a non-notable playmate model. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. damiens.rf 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of people in Playboy 2000–2009#2007. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Redirect per Clarityfiend. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Keemstar

Keemstar (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)

Very much not my field, but I noticed this because of the BLP concerns. Quite apart from the subject, there are a number of living people referred to, many in uncomplimentary terms, based on sourcing which is not acceptable for BLP. It could be argued that any of them are public figures just as much as he is, but this doesnt in my opinion justify an article mainly featuring the negative interactions among them. Apart from being basically written as a BLP violation, sources seem utterly unsubstantial, and I think the appropriate rule is NOTTABLOID. Some of the sources merely cite him peripherally; many are basically promotional notices.

I do not know to what extent this is the standard of referencing and article writing in this subject; if most other articles are like this, we should reconsider how we deal with the field DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment There is no doubt in my mind that Keemstar is notable; if you use YouTube or Twitter, you've probably heard of him before. However, the point about the sourcing is fair. For such a controversial individual, we need high quality sources, and the sources currently in the article are not high quality. It might be worth invoking WP:BLPDELETE here. Mlb96 (talk) 23:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
• Keep The article is mainly negative because that is how he's mainly covered by the media. While the page does have sourcing issues, the more contentious material is supported by reliable sources. (Note that the daily beast article was written in 2018 when it was considered a generally reliable source) Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This has to be a joke nomination, or the OP has mistakenly applied a WP principle to this article. Keemstar easily fulfills WP:GNG and WP:BASIC with articles from outlets like The Daily Dot, The Daily Beast, Polygon, Dot Esports and Mashable significantly covering him, his content and his activities on YouTube. Yes, Keemstar's article is filled with an overly lengthy controversy section. But that's because Keem is easily one of the most controversial and notorious online Internet personalities, possibly of all time (as in, Internet historians years from now will remember him in a notorious light like a lot of dubious historical figures). As an online personality who covers such drama and gossip akin to someone like Perez Hilton, of course he would run into such controversies and have sources cover his dilemmas as well. In terms of sourcing, even reliable media outlets that aren't gossip-based have recognized him as such, and have covered the interactions he's had with other content creators, which of course one would reasonably infer as negative (without WP or reliable sources serving to imply such a conclusion). At worst, this is clearly an issue of due weight rather than any BLP violations. Because with someone like Keemstar, let's face it. There's only so much neutrality one may possess when writing articles from reliable sources which cover controversial figures. It's pretty hard to maintain neutrality and keep in line with the sources if those sources are along the lines of "Keemstar did X, he has been criticized for Y, someone accused Keemstar of Z" and so on. But that shouldn't degrade the notability of Keemstar nor the quality of Misplaced Pages. We're a website that simply summarizes research from reliable sources, and if reliable sources have significantly covered controversies like this, then we would have to include it. Full stop.

Also, this is PantheonRadiance typing this from another country. I randomly saw this today and just had to add my two cents to the discussion. 41.223.132.235 (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per PantheonRadiance. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:BASIC with many news outlets reporting on him. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Comment My main concern was BLP; the reaction seems to be that he deserves it. As I said, I wanted to see what the WP standards are in this field. I seem to have received an answer. WP is made up quite a number of separate fields with their own practices; we each generally ask only that the peculiarities of our ts fields are respected, and I will not bother ourselves with the similarly peculiar others. At some point, though rarely, something stands out enough to concern the general communit DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Six Flags Magic Mountain. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Canyon Blaster (Six Flags Magic Mountain)

Canyon Blaster (Six Flags Magic Mountain) (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)

A web search only gives databases like the one used as the article's only source, primary sources, and fandom wikis. No signs of notability. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously nominated via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. ~~~~
  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
• Merge with Six Flags Magic Mountain – Some editors in the past used to weigh in on these discussions claiming that all coaster installations are inherently notable, but I'm from a different camp. Coasters like this one will never have any coverage in reliable sources other than the day they were added to (or removed from) the park, barring any major incidents during its time in operation. Coverage of these insignficant rides should be relegated solely to the article of the amusement park where they reside. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Merge due to lack of significant coverage of this specific attraction as opposed to the park as a whole. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 20:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
• Merge is appropriate for the amusement park it is covered by. As per its minimum reliable source coverage. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
• Merge No RS to substantiate as an independent article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Raza Samo

Categories

Proposed deletions

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

• Misplaced Pages deletion sorting
• WikiProject Entertainment