Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senior producer


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Senior producer

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

I found tons of sources using the term, but very few explaining what it actually is. Textbook WP:DICDEF; despite existing since 2009 and having a myriad of edits, this article has seen fewer than a dozen edits, further suggesting that it is incapable of expansion. Prod declined with prompt to improve it, but legitimate sourcing proved elusive. It's clearly just a WP:DICDEF and nothing more. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article now contains the sourcing that the nominator found to be so elusive. SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep sources are clear on notability; article is a stub but could be expanded. -- Jayron 32 12:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Which is why it's been two sentences long since 2009, right? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not a concern. Per WP:DEADLINE, not every article needs to be in a complete state.  Lots of obscure topics can be expanded, but haven't yet.  Wikipedia has existed for a finite amount of time.  When we reach an infinite amount of time, I'll expect it to be complete.  -- Jayron 32 17:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between WP:DEADLINE and just magically expecting the article to build itself, and this seems dangerously close to the latter. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the article is not magically going to build itself, but "it's going to take some time for someone to expand this" is not a reason for deletion. We delete articles largely because Wikipedia shouldn't have an article about the subject, or because it is a copyvio, or something like that.  "It could be expanded, but hasn't yet been" is not a deletion rationale.  -- Jayron 32 11:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - as mentioned, being a stub is not a reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 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.