Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Man Without Honor

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. Missvain (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Man Without Honor

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:GNG. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they lack in-depth coverage and also fail WP:GNG:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 15:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose these be draftified as well.--TheVampire (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kill the Boy has a roundtable in The Atlantic, an IGN review and a Vanity Fair review. As with the similar Simpsons nomination, it's not a good idea to nominate a big batch of episodes when there are significant differences in coverage. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: huge WP:BEFORE failure here. Picked one at random, Second Sons. Noticed Rotten Tomatoes was cited—it's not good to quote its percentage unless there's at least 20 reviews, because then there's too much random fluctuation. But what do you know, there are 37 reviews for it. Most (not all) are reliable sources, including IndieWire, The Atlantic, The Observer, Collider, Daily Telegraph, TV.com, Entertainment Weekly, Den of Geek, Rolling Stone, Vulture, The Hollywood Reporter. Plenty to satisfy GNG. — Bilorv (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Most of these articles meet the basic guidelines of WP:GNG which is significant coverage, have reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Mockingbird (Game of Thrones) was nominated for two awards which increases its position on significant coverage. Also with Mockingbird there is a tag idicating the plot summary is too long which is the right course of action versus potentially re-nominating it later with a longer than necessary plot as the reason. A Man Without Honor barely passes the guidelines out of the whole bunch but passes nonetheless. In fact most of these pass GNG and are stubs and there is nothing wrong with a good stub. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 19:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reviews for each episode from reliable sources. That means they all pass GNG in my book. Rhino131 (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh), Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No valid rationale for deletion has been presented here and it seems WP:BEFORE was not carried out. It has been asserted that these episodes lack coverage but checking a few of them shows that some of these episodes have received more than 50 critic reviews on rotten tomatoes, including coverage from multiple reliable sources. as noted by Alucard 16 at least one of these episodes was nominated for multiple awards. 192.76.8.93 (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.