Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reviews on the Run (2nd nomination)


 * 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 redirect to EP Daily. Viable ATD in the absence of sourcing. Star  Mississippi  02:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Reviews on the Run
AfDs for this article:


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

Current sources are all press releases, forum posts (seriously, WTF), or other unreliable first-party coverage. I tried googling various forms of the name + "Victor Lucas" and found literally nothing. Previously kept in 2008. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Video games. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to EP Daily, where it is mentioned, as alternative to deletion. czar  18:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep If you limit your search to Google Canada, you get several hits in newspapers, one discussing video game awards presented in part by the show. Oaktree b (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect Per Czar as a WP:ATD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * I found one example of SIGCOV: Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 16:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as two sentences do not constitute WP:SIGCOV, and we can't write a WP:VERIFIABLE article with only a bare bones definition of what something is. Most of this article is WP:OR without any suitable sources. WP:STICKTOSOURCES tells us that if there aren't independent sources that discuss a topic, we shouldn't have an article on it. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Not enough SIGCOV here to warrant a page Dexxtrall (talk) 11:05, 10 May 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.