Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Once Upon a Sesame Street Christmas


 * 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 21:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Once Upon a Sesame Street Christmas

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

A single token source, no showing of notability, no SIGCOV. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and a cursory search not yielding results. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge into Sesame Street, not seeing the sort of coverage we would need for a stand alone page. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection to a merge, but is a one hour Christmas Special notable enough to need even a mention? Possibly delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete because the information presented in this article contradicts WP:NOTPLOT. A simple mention in the Sesame Street is warranted, BUT a full merge is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MitYehor (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I found a couple of sources, including a NY Times review of several paragraphs. The show won an Emmy and a WGA Award. Jahaza (talk) 02:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the sources. --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per the updates done by . --Rtkat3 (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Yet another case of no BEFORE being done before nominating.★Trekker (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep in view of the additional reliable sources coverage newly referenced in the article such as The New York Times and Mashable so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2023 (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.