Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sugar Rush (2005 TV series)


 * 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Sugar Rush (2005 TV series)

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

Deprodded with addition of sources, but only one is actually about the show. The rest of the sources are about the bakery and do not mention the show at all. Fails WP:NTV Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC) Relisting comment: It would be nice to have a few more opinions here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 11 May 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?) 00:41, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * References 6 and 7 are both about the show, and all of the references talk about the show. The NTV guidelines say "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." -- there are 7 sources, 5 of which are independent from the show. -- AW (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And I just added another one about the show --AW (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Source 1 is an interview and thus not independent. Sources 2 and 3 are about a bakery and do not mention Sugar Rush at all. Sources 4 and 6 are again about the bakery and only dedicate one sentence to the show. Sources 5 and 8 are from Food Network. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep The Washington Post article does provide some detail on the show, and this article helps the show to meet WP:GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 11:37, 11 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.