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 redirect to WIBC (FM)#Local news and talk. (non-admin closure) Ashleyyoursmile! 04:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chicks on the Right (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article was deleted and now has reappeared largely unchanged and with the same sourcing problem. I tagged it before as G4 but was denied. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to get others to help me improve this article and get it up to snuff, Wiki-wise. I must admit I'm confused as to why Zero Serenity seems to prefer getting the article deleted rather than working on bringing it to a point of rescue and redemption. He fought hard enough for deletion that he attempted to get it "speedy deleted". That was denied just a few hours later. He also repeatedly undid my undo attempts, which resulted in the page being locked for days, keeping me from working on it to bring it to the standards he would like the page to reflect. It appears to still be locked which prevents anyone from improving it. Another editor has already stated elsewhere that the article meets the required notability for it to be a page on its own away from the WIBC page. I tried to get him to discuss his intent and thought process at the talk page of the article, he pretty much refused. This is all confusing to me. It's always been my impression that creating and expanding on articles to bring them to Wikipedia standards is what Wikipedia folks are supposed to be focusing on, not deleting things that have a chance of informing others who search for info online. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about me. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 01:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Serenity, you have made deleting the article a mission. You've written articles about it that mission in Daily Kos. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2020/8/25/1972168/-Conservatives-don-t-understand-how-Wikipedia-works-again You have have been working hard to make sure this article dies, and from what you have written at your social media spaces and Daily Kos, it appears the entire effort is politically inspired. https://www.chicksonright.com/blog/2020/08/25/an-atheist-feminist-gamer-from-the-daily-kos-has-responded-to-my-wikipedia-post-lololololol/ You've done little in Wikipedia for the last several months, and in the last week you've done more related to getting the COTR page deleted than anything else since the beginning of the year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Zero_Serenity Why not help me improve the article? It's possible, I can't do it alone, let's do it together. If you still won't do that, then I think it would be very clear the mission you have against this article and the subject of the article is very much about you. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi there @Alaska4Me2. Please remember deletion discussions are for focussing on the article, not the contributor. Linking trashy self-published opinions pieces that attack editors repeatedly doesn't help prove your point. Personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Thank you, — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to WIBC (FM)#Local news and talk per WP:OVERCOME. The first AfD for this article seems to have ended with the decision that the topic was not notable enough to warrant its own article, and no amount of editing or improvement can overcome that. If a topic is not notable enough for its own article, that's all there is to it unless that level of notability changes over time. — Bsoyka✉ 02:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at this link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Onel5969#Chicks_on_the_Right An editor who removed the speedy delete request stated it does meet notability guidelines. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but the actual AfD debate ended with the decision to delete the article. Six people responded with either "delete" or "redirect", and the majority of the "keep" votes and comments came from outside canvassing and single-purpose accounts. Now, an AfD debate is definitely not a vote, but the result was that the article was to be deleted, and I don't think anything has changed enough in terms of notability and reliable coverage to affect that outcome. Bsoyka✉ 15:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since that previous deletion, I worked on the article, expanded it, added sources. It's not the same article. And it wouldn't be the article it is now if it hadn't been locked up and I could have worked on it further. Nominating it again to be deleted while it's locked and no one can expand it further is unfair. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Also, the article as it stands right now is more about the hosts than the show itself, and the important information about the show could easily be added to WIBC (FM)#Local news and talk instead of its own article. Bsoyka✉ 15:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to WIBC (FM)#Local news and talk per above. Ambrosiawater (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Delete. The article was removed once, and with good reason it would seem. It just doesn't warrant its own article I'm afraid - but try telling that to all the canvassers! Evaline Nakano (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2021 (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.