Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost Mysteries


 * 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. Legoktm (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Lost Mysteries

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

The article in question is about works of art related to a list of episodes for a television series, but the article does not seem noteworthy by itself. Merging into the main article Scooby-Doo, Where Are You! is an option, but recommend condensing it into a single paragraph without the table. &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 23:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: I am only relisting once to allow for a broader community review. Others may relist beyond once. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 00:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 00:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Has coverage in several reliable sources, passes GNG. "Article is a stub and bad" is not reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC) (article author)
 * It should be known that I had initially proposed the deletion of the article in question for the reasons mentioned above, in accordance with WP:PRODNOM. You removed the tag per WP:DEPROD instructions, but did not explain your reasons for the objection in the edit summary, merely that you objected. The citations in the given article do not seem to justify article, but perhaps the article just needs to be seriously reworked. I still suggest as an alternate option, merging as mentioned in the nomination. &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 23:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Poor sources (WP:GNG): Having examined the references by going to the websites, the articles sourced are blogs, with some reading like advertisements; others merely a couple of sentences strung together, not much more than an headline. As mentioned, there are multiple instances in which the sources—already poor on their own—come from the same blog. &#8212;&#160;CJDOS,&#160;Sheridan,&#160;OR&#160;(talk) 15:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Loads of refs suggesting this is a notable thing. JMWt (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It is notable. Akshaypatill (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. The article appears to be well referenced to independent secondary sources. Without a source analysis from the nominator, I'm not seeing a good argument for why these works of art do not meet GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:40, 14 October 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.