Talk:Pop Drunk Snot Bread

Requested move 24 April 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. If there is still concern that the article does not meet our requirements, please file an AFD nomination. Primefac (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Pop Drunk Snot Bread → Draft:Pop Drunk Snot Bread – Db-g4 rejected due to lack of snowball consensus, current article has one reference and is a stub with no indication of notability. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - have you done a WP:BEFORE search? Coverage exists now. There's no reason it can't be improved in the mainspace. Sergecross73   msg me  14:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons. I did a quick WP:BEFORE and found lots of reviews, coverage, etc, and added them to the article.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Lugnuts' additions. – 2 . O . Boxing  18:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Reply - The references have been added, the reviews themselves have barely been inserted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason to send something back to the draft space. Either fix it yourself or leave it to someone else. Sergecross73   msg me  22:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The article may be a stub but the present sources clear and more are available. No need to draftify, just expand what's already here. QuietHere (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose - article now has more five references, not one. I don't see that Draft is an option though - the next step would be AFD if one thinks it's not notable. Also, it looks like just before starting this move discussion, that User:Jax 0677 started a discussion at WP:AN asking for deletion of this article. Isn't this WP:FORUMSHOPPING? Nfitz (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose While it could be expanded, it is more than sufficient to remain in the article space. -- Jayron 32 14:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The purpose of draftification is to allow an article to devleop.  This is clearly and increasingly sufficiently supported by reliable sources to remain in article space.  deserves a Barnstar of Rescue, and will likely get one after Jeopardy toninght. If the Herculean effort expended in trying to use a WP:G4 template to delete an article whose prior AfD had not resulted in delete, and then continued in a disruptive WP:AN thread, followed by this, had been spent in finding sources, it would have been so much better for everyone. -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 23:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)