Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Legend of Shelby the Swamp Man


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 15:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The Legend of Shelby the Swamp Man

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

Article heavily relies on primary sources, a quick Google search only shows information about Shelby Stanga himself or brief mentions of the show. Fails WP:NTV. Spinixster  (chat!)  10:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Spinixster   (chat!)  10:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Nom's bang on the money - all primary sources and more out there but nothing to take us past WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep  and this, combined with the Common Sense media link in the article, I think we just have enough for notability. Just barely over the line. Add this for what it's worth . Oaktree b (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the Washington Post source can be used since it seems like it's just a listing of the shows airing for the day. Spinixster   (chat!)  03:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per Oaktree b. The sources seem ample to meet the WP:SIGCOV threshold of covering the article subject sufficiently directly and in sufficient detail that no original research is needed to extract the content. Even the WaPo paragraph reaches that threshold in my opinion -- it's a bare 55 words but can be cited directly for a number of salient facts without running into OR concerns. As a fallback, if not kept, I'd advocate merging to Ax Men as a new L3 section, since that seems like a reasonable way to cover a marginally-notable spinoff. -- Visviva (talk) 03:48, 19 July 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.