Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wubbzy's Big Movie! (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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Wubbzy's Big Movie!
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is the second time that this page has been nominated for deletion. Last time the result was Keep, but I’m opening it up again after thinking about it some more. Yes, someone did produce a review from Dove, but it was only one review. One review from a reliable source is not enough to satisfy WP:SIGCOV. We’d need multiple sources for coverage to be truly significant. However, none have surfaced so I’m starting to think there are none. The best I found was just passing mentions, but that’s not good enough. I think the best thing to do here is make this page a redirect to List of Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! episodes. This thing is by no means notable enough for its own article. Helen (💬📖) 21:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Limited merge and redirect to List of Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! episodes. One review is not enough and it isn't even really that much of a review, just a single paragraph once you exclude the quotation of the official blurb. Nor is the review even used in the article, which is currently completely unreferenced. There is nothing to justify an article. A little of the content could be merged if verifiable. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Wow! Wow! Wubbzy! episodes As before, better described there than here where it's barely sourced and there's little coverage to be found.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep the previous AFD found at least two reliable sources reviews such as The Globe and Mail. Also a second AFD nomination after 2 months is considered disruptive when the recommended separation is at least six months, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is better than the Dove review but only very slightly. It is still just a single paragraph. The content makes it very clear that what we have here is basically an extended episode of the TV show cobbled together with old material. If anything that makes it less likely that this deserves the meagre dignity afforded to made for TV movies and should be treated merely as a special episode. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur that this source is very borderline when it comes to WP:SIGCOV. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Atlantic306's rationale. Donald D23   talk to me  15:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Dove is listed a as WP:RS and counts 100% towards notability. As explained in the previous AfD, "The Dove Foundation is a reliable source for non controversial subjects such as film reviews and is a rotten tomatoes critic."  Therefore, the comment above saying that the Globle and Mail review is better than the Dove review is incorrect.  In addition, per WP:RENOM, "If the XfD discussion was closed as “keep”, generally do not renominate the page for at least six months, unless there is something new to say, and even so, usually wait a few months."  There doesn't look like there is much difference between this nomination and the first one that closed on June 2. Therefore, I think a procedural "keep" close applies as not enough time has gone by between nominations.  Donald D23   talk to me  19:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We have two (2) reviews of one (1) paragraph each. I don't think that this constitutes significant coverage. The other big problem is that much of the content of the article is unverifiable. It goes well beyond what the reviews say and nothing in the article is referenced to any sources at all. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact that 6 months haven't passed since other editors voted to keep the article. Donald D23   talk to me  01:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per my !vote in the previous AfD. I'm also surprised that this was so quickly re-nominated for deletion after that relatively well-attended discussion was closed as "keep". I've trimmed some unsourced cruft from the article and added the reviews, so it's no longer unreferenced. DanCherek (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, this was kept like two months ago. Has reviews, including Glob and Mail. Pikavoom (talk) 08:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 06:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Two very short, capsule-style reviews. IMHO that falls on the wrong side of WP:SIGCOV and thus GNG is not met here. Ping me if better sources are found. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Nothing has changed since the last AfD. WP:DRV would likely not overturn that consensus, so why the premature renomination for content that was found to meet GNG, albeit barely, a few months ago? Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I do not think there is sufficient evidence to overturn the recent AfD. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - There are mentioned sources and the previous Afd process of this article also convinces that notability can be met sufficiently.-- Melaleuca alternifolia  |  talk  20:37, 1 September 2021 (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.