Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Droners

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 no consensus‎. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Droners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022.

PROD removed with comment "remove proposed deletion. can be listed on AFD, but the show seems notable enough to me to warrant inclusion, and in fact five other languages have an article for it."

However, none of the other 5 language articles appears to have any citations that can be used to establish notability. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and France. DonaldD23 talk to me 10:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: coverage in Variety [1], [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage in reliable sources. The Variety links posted above are not significant coverage, both read like regurgitated press releases, not something that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". --Mika1h (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - I think we have to draw a difference between actual PR copy and news reports that are simply positive. There's this belief in some quarters that if the coverage doesn't contain negativity then it automatically is flap-copy, but I don't see it here. The Variety coverage appears sufficient by itself for a basic WP:GNG pass if it weren't for the fact that both pieces are from the same outlet, however I think we can extend the benefit of the doubt in this case as coverage seems likely to exist in French. FOARP (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable per Oaktree b's refs. FOARP makes a good point between PR copy and positive coverage. Relying on two refs from the same outlet is not disqualifying according to our guidelines.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Le Figaro has one-paragraph descriptions of each episode. Collectively, I'd consider them significant coverage.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 17:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful if editors could add these new sources to the article being discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the Figaro ones, they appeared to be Tv Guide-type listings. But they do have a synopsis for each episode in a RS, I guess it's ok. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2023 (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.