The result was keep. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
No clear evidence or assertion of notability. Article has previously been recreated, which I redirected to subject, and again a second time, which was disputed by creator, hence ending up at AfD.
References offered only prove show exists and that subject themselves is notable (as they have their own article), but a show about them is not in itself necessarily notable in its own right. In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article......???? .... Documentary films that are not series MAY be notable, most evidently.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
a documentary programme, not a film....hmmm.....yes, this a documentary film. (it's available on HBO but that does not make it a non-film)...and yes, it's notable "in its own right" as multiple reviews and a lot of very significant coverage addressing the subject in depth and directly in extremely
No evidence a BEFORE was indeed performedand
Have you really checked existing sources???, do not feel like an assumption of good faith, and is a tone to perhaps reflect upon in future. My concerns where not through a lack of media coverage, as outlined. That said, regardless of my own view, consensus seems to be towards retaining, even though I still feel there is a credible case to rd or merge into the subject's article where it's barely mentioned, given it's broadly a collection of journalists' opinions and referencing overuse. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
broadly a collection of journalists' opinionsaccording to you? If it's the sources added to the page, it seems to be another way for acknowledging the existence of LOTS of reviews, which you may have seen or read during your BEFORE, as apparently you consider that you have done one, which I indeed seriously doubted, for which I apologise since you seem to indicate you have and honestly did everything in your power to find sources ("If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." said WP:BEFORE, and you are apparently telling me that you did. I will therefore assume that it's true.) and found "
No clear evidence or assertion of notability".
referencing overuse(unless you are, again, not referring to this article but to the one about Chow) is not exactly the response I was hoping, to be, again, perfectly honest with you. I take it you won't withdraw, then. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
The result was keep. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
No clear evidence or assertion of notability. Article has previously been recreated, which I redirected to subject, and again a second time, which was disputed by creator, hence ending up at AfD.
References offered only prove show exists and that subject themselves is notable (as they have their own article), but a show about them is not in itself necessarily notable in its own right. In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 06:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
In contrast to a running series of multiple episodes, this seems to be a single documentary programme that can best be covered on the subject's own article......???? .... Documentary films that are not series MAY be notable, most evidently.- My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:33, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
a documentary programme, not a film....hmmm.....yes, this a documentary film. (it's available on HBO but that does not make it a non-film)...and yes, it's notable "in its own right" as multiple reviews and a lot of very significant coverage addressing the subject in depth and directly in extremely
No evidence a BEFORE was indeed performedand
Have you really checked existing sources???, do not feel like an assumption of good faith, and is a tone to perhaps reflect upon in future. My concerns where not through a lack of media coverage, as outlined. That said, regardless of my own view, consensus seems to be towards retaining, even though I still feel there is a credible case to rd or merge into the subject's article where it's barely mentioned, given it's broadly a collection of journalists' opinions and referencing overuse. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
broadly a collection of journalists' opinionsaccording to you? If it's the sources added to the page, it seems to be another way for acknowledging the existence of LOTS of reviews, which you may have seen or read during your BEFORE, as apparently you consider that you have done one, which I indeed seriously doubted, for which I apologise since you seem to indicate you have and honestly did everything in your power to find sources ("If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." said WP:BEFORE, and you are apparently telling me that you did. I will therefore assume that it's true.) and found "
No clear evidence or assertion of notability".
referencing overuse(unless you are, again, not referring to this article but to the one about Chow) is not exactly the response I was hoping, to be, again, perfectly honest with you. I take it you won't withdraw, then. - My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:34, 12 June 2024 (UTC)