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 delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 16:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Naked and Funny

Naked and Funny (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Cannot find sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. All the coverage I could find is:

• [1] (Russian), which gives a brief description of the show.
• [2] (Russian), which mentions the show trivially and appears to be a blog
• [3] (Russian), which announces the show will be broadcast in Ukraine. Appears to largely be a republication of a press release.
• [4] [5] [6] [7] (Portuguese), which all appear to trivially cover the changing of the program's time-slot.
• [8] (Portuguese), which appears to be a blog criticizing the program
• [9] (Portuguese), which appears to be a blog criticizing the program
• [10] (Portuguese), which covers the aforementioned time-slot change and covers the program itself in more depth userdude 08:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. userdude 08:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. userdude 08:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. userdude 08:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment. From Special:Diff/762239794, it appears that the article — as it stands — was written almost entirely by a user with a WP:COI. userdude 20:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete - This seems rather clear. We don't have the reliable sourcing that we need to cover a television program in depth. We've got a promotional article as it stands that's full of various claims without anything sourcing at all. As it stands, the situation is quite bad. Deletion absolutely makes sense. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 10:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC) reply

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.