Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fit for Fashion


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Fit for Fashion

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

the sources i could find in a wp:before and in the article are unreliable. wp:gng requires "reliable and independent sources".

bundling the season articles for mainly the same reasons. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fit for Fashion (season 1)
 * Fit for Fashion (season 2) -- lettherebedarklight –  晚安  ( おやすみなさい ).  06:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Asia. -- lettherebedarklight  –  晚安  ( おやすみなさい ).  06:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:GNG passes.
 * Journey to transformation Manila Bulletin January 19, 2016. via WP Library
 * Filipinos join Fit for Fashion Season 2 The Philippine Star. January 12, 2016
 * From fat to fit thanks to reality TV show. Yahoo! News Singapore. March 6, 2015
 * ‘Fit for Fashion’ Season 2 Premieres in January Manila Standard December 23, 2015
 * Fit for Fashion’s bolder, braver Season 2 The Philippine Star October 29, 2015
 * Not familiar with reliabilities of these, ,
 * If season articles need to be merged back to main article, or if they are better split out can be discussed after deletion discussion. They both need sourcing, but probably fine split out if sourced and main article can be expanded from stub. WikiVirusC (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep as per the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above including national newspapers so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2022 (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.