Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Schumer: The Leather Special


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure)  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   22:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Amy Schumer: The Leather Special

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reason for a one time 1 hour special to have its own page, its an unnecessary WP:CFORK -  Galatz Talk  15:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Galatz  Talk  15:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Galatz  Talk  15:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This one-hour special meets WP:GNG, based on what I see here in the Gnews results. I can't support deletion, as a solution, therefore. It is a bona fide example of Category:Stand-up comedy concert films, which expressly includes TV specials. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 28.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 16:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * When looking at whether or not a rule applies for if a Wikipedia article should be a candidate for deletion, I look at past occurrences for the same type of article. For this, I used George Carlin's HBO stand-up specials, which literally every single one of them got a respective article. Likewise, notability of this subject increases somewhat significantly when considering all of the heated controversy that has happened with this special and the alt-right. Keep. Agith (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Fails simplest standards and notability.Cllgbksr (talk) 03:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The series has been widely covered by many sources (see my keep vote for the exact sources); this article may be unfinished, but it does not need to be deleted.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 04:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This show has been covered by LA Times, New York Times, and Huffington Post, among others. Amy Schumer herself responded to the criticism of the show on Instagram, claiming that the amount of one-star reviews she received came from "alt-right trolls", as covered in Fox News, Entertainment Weekly, Vanity Fair, and USA Today; these sources connected r/The_Donald to the Netflix rating bomb.  Yoshiman6464   ♫🥚 04:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Having many RS cover her special do not make it as a stand alone topic notable. See WP:SPINOFF which clearly says its in the case when it would otherwise make the main article having undue weight. This is a subject that could easily be covered in a paragraph or two in her main article without any undue weight put on it. -  Galatz Talk  14:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right. But if that's the case, why did you set out to delete instead of simply proposing a merge? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on what the article currently has I did not think it added anything to warrant merging. I stated that the points he made COULD BE covered in a paragraph or two, but I don't think the article in its current state does that. Outside of the information about the special itself, which is included on the main page, there are 4 sentences. I did not feel that warranted merging, however I would not object to that vote if you felt that the content should be merged in, just in my opinion this is delete not merge. -  Galatz Talk  20:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, you're contradicting yourself on that point, from what I can see. My !vote remains the same. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Very interesting to me to see how this article, like so many others, seems to be playing out as a battleground for US ideological issues. The stub was recently halved by an IP editor who claimed it was "weird" that an article would address "topical and political" issues. Which of course is not the case, especially if the reaction to a creative work or performance, and debate over it, is part of the notability. Wikipedia is not censored. I've restored that blanked section. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG. Plenty of non routine coverage of the show in nationwide U.S. sources.--TM 14:56, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, Galatz, edits like this serve no purpose if you don't actually ensure that the Afd is listed on the discussion pages. I've now added them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Whoops good catch, my mistake. -  Galatz Talk  13:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Snow? Stand-up specials regularly have their own pages (like different books by the same author; different films by the same director; etc.) and this has plenty of sourcing to sustain the entry (in fact to expand it--more information is available to present a fuller description of the content of the special, critical response, audience criticism, Schumer's response, etc.) I'm hard-pressed to see the argument for deletion. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per GNG. I note the article has been more properly formatted and expanded since the AfD began, but the topic was still notable through extensive coverage and the article was well sourced even in its original form. -- Whats new?(talk) 09:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG. Many reliable sources for the special to have its own page. Mymis (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2017 (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.