Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Robot


 * 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   Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Gay Robot

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I originally redirected this but that action was undone. While the topic is interesting, this article completely fails to meet WP:GNG. The two sources right now are unreliable (one is a Wikipedia article, one is a blog that uses this article as a source) A Google search yields no reliable sources that establish notability. Ryan Vesey 14:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of secondary sources in searches for "Gay Robot" with additional search parameter Sandler and/or Swardson. There's even multiple articles in a bunch of other languages.
 * 1) Sandler.
 * 2) Swardson:.
 * Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cirt, can you please provide at least a few of the sources you are referring to? I don't see any reliable sources or sources that establish notability in those searches. Ryan Vesey 04:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you are looking at the sources in those links provided through a different perspective and seeing what you wish to see or not see, but the secondary sources are there, in multitude. :) Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added some to the article including a few interviews. I gave up after the first 25 pages, there are a lot of YouTube links which is to be expected with this subject. Insomesia (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Subject appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NOTABLE. There are no reliable sources on the topic available from a Google search, all I see are unreliable references. TBrandley 03:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep it has to do with the world and it has a source Hulk3200 (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Inappropriate !vote, see Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. It doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:NOTABLE, and thus should be deleted. Expand your comment properly to prove a valid argument. Also, the source is to "Blogspot", which is most certainly not reliable. TBrandley 03:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the best !vote, but the comment does mention sourcing, albeit it could have gone into a little more depth about sourcing. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Insomesia
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Insomesia


 * Keep. It may have not seemed obvious but there are sources discussing the original song, the writing process, the process of turning it into a show, the animation show and other facets as well as other gay robot memes. All brought together I think it passes GNG. Note to closer: Article expanded and sources added. Insomesia (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've taken a glance at the changes and the article looks a lot better. I should have a chance soon to look through the sources and will modify my opinion then.  Thanks for the improvements! Ryan Vesey 20:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Great job by at improving the page with a multitude of source discussion, excellent work! :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Looks good now. TBrandley 20:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Insomesia has greatly expanded the article and added in references to prove this easily passes the general notability guidelines.  D r e a m Focus  08:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Insomesia's improvements and clear demonstration of notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep badly written, and wandering into seriously off topic territory. But clearly notable, and clearly enough on topic information to support an article. Support efforts towards clean-up. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2012 (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.