Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Answer (Steven Universe)

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. AfD is definitely not the right place to discuss suspected sockpuppeting or UPE, and no valid reason for deletion under WP:DELREASON has been identified. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm^{scrutinize, talk} 20:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Answer (Steven Universe)[edit]

[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)

I am nominating this article for deletion per WP:BRV, especially in regards to off-wiki information between the creator of the article and Steven Universe, which I won't describe here but suffice to say could be considered a violation of WP:G5. Kuchi Kopi (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The reasoning for this deletion is not only absurd, but so broad that it makes little sense, especially since you are nominating, but claiming it is in regards to off-wiki information, but WON'T even describe what it is! Please withdraw this incorrect AfD. This episode IS notable and the fact you nominated this for an AfD instead of beginning a discussion on the talk page is an indication that this discussion is not productive to anyone.Historyday01 (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BRV only applies to articles that were created in violation of a ban. It does not apply to editors who created an article, in good faith, and were later banned. Unless you're accusing Pokelova (the now banned and globally locked article creator) of acting as a proxy or meatpuppet of another banned user, I can't see how BRV or the spirit of G5 applies here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to clear notability and lack of warrant for deletion. There's no precedent for this deletion under BRV. 777burger ^{user talk} ^contribs 17:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of the article is notable and no good reason for deleting it under Wikipedia policy has been explained. AJD (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2023 (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.