- 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. Daniel ( talk) 23:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Backpack Picnic
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Backpack Picnic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Web series fails WP:GNG for a lack of significant, in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Was initially PRODed, but a user de-PRODed for its brief mention in an NYT article. Can't be merged because the creators nor the platform have standalone articles. Delete. Citrivescence ( talk) 19:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence ( talk) 19:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Aside from the NYT source already in the article, I also found a small mention in an article that was printed in a couple of small papers. However, in both cases, the actual coverage is extremely minimal, basically consisting of a couple of sentences. This is far from being able to count as significant coverage in either of those sources. This article also contains a link to a review from Tubefilter, which I am largely unfamiliar with, and am not sure is a valid reliable source. However, even if it is, it appears to be the only source that could be considered to be significant coverage, and this is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma ( talk) 20:52, 31 July 2021 (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 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. Daniel ( talk) 23:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Backpack Picnic
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Backpack Picnic ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Web series fails WP:GNG for a lack of significant, in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Was initially PRODed, but a user de-PRODed for its brief mention in an NYT article. Can't be merged because the creators nor the platform have standalone articles. Delete. Citrivescence ( talk) 19:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence ( talk) 19:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - Aside from the NYT source already in the article, I also found a small mention in an article that was printed in a couple of small papers. However, in both cases, the actual coverage is extremely minimal, basically consisting of a couple of sentences. This is far from being able to count as significant coverage in either of those sources. This article also contains a link to a review from Tubefilter, which I am largely unfamiliar with, and am not sure is a valid reliable source. However, even if it is, it appears to be the only source that could be considered to be significant coverage, and this is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma ( talk) 20:52, 31 July 2021 (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.