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 no consensus. The two keep arguments are weak, but there is no consensus to delete the article at this time. (non-admin closure) NemesisAT (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kittenpants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT and I can't find better sources to demonstrate otherwise. The page has had a citations needed banner since 2011 and the page was previously nominated for deletion here with no consensus. The arguments to keep included claims that interviews and primary sources contribute to notability, claims of future notability but no new sources have surfaced since, claims of other stuff having fewer sources and therefore this must be notable, and finally suggesting ignore all rules and I like it when confronted with the fact that the sources presented are trivial mentions. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per sources provided on the last AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kittenpants) especially by Northamerica1000 who is still editing. killer bee  16:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's enough sources to merit an article. Even when the book was published years later, it got coverage in reliable sources. So passes GNG. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2022 (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.