The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Was seemingly closed as "no consensus" earlier today, which is questionable when the weight of argument was in favour of deletion. None the less, the viability and determined notability of this subject has not been decided upon.
There was just a single additional reference added during the last afd, while none of the current references meet WP:SIGCOV. We cannot use database entries or one-word mentions on an article about a different subject to assert notability. Likewise, actors who may be notable for their work outside of this show do not make this show notable merely by their participation.
Anyone wishing to !vote keep should read the previous afd and demonstrate with evidence why this is a notable show. This evidence was not offered during the last afd. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
If the XfD discussion was closed as “no consensus”, generally do not renominate the page for at least two months.Bungle, I agree with your insightful analysis per the previous AfD, but given that AfD is just recently closed discussion here would likely lead to the same result. If it is the case that this AfD can proceed, no worries, but if it's procedurally closed my advice is wait for two months preferably. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The first AFD just closed last week. And we are back here 7 days later?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
Was seemingly closed as "no consensus" earlier today, which is questionable when the weight of argument was in favour of deletion. None the less, the viability and determined notability of this subject has not been decided upon.
There was just a single additional reference added during the last afd, while none of the current references meet WP:SIGCOV. We cannot use database entries or one-word mentions on an article about a different subject to assert notability. Likewise, actors who may be notable for their work outside of this show do not make this show notable merely by their participation.
Anyone wishing to !vote keep should read the previous afd and demonstrate with evidence why this is a notable show. This evidence was not offered during the last afd. Bungle ( talk • contribs) 19:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
If the XfD discussion was closed as “no consensus”, generally do not renominate the page for at least two months.Bungle, I agree with your insightful analysis per the previous AfD, but given that AfD is just recently closed discussion here would likely lead to the same result. If it is the case that this AfD can proceed, no worries, but if it's procedurally closed my advice is wait for two months preferably. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The first AFD just closed last week. And we are back here 7 days later?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk!
20:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)