Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hit List (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 delete. Sandstein 05:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Hit List[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)

Does not meet WP:GNG. I couldn't find anything that meets WP:100WORDS let alone WP:THREESOURCES. It doesn't appear that anyone in the previous AfD provided any sources to support any of their arguments. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although I supported keeping this in 2005, that was a very, very different time in Wikipedia's evolution — we did not actually have the same rules back then that we have now around having to source a topic to independent analysis of its significance, but rather as long as it was possible to verify that the thing existed it otherwise came down to subjective interpretations of whether its notability claim sounded significant or not. Both our rules, and my own thinking, have changed considerably in the past 15 years, and this definitely does not meet the rules that apply in 2021 anymore. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this could easily be merged into John Sakamoto's article, which is just as short and poorly sourced. Whether Sakamoto's article itself deserves to be kept is another matter. Richard3120 (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. Sakamoto's article is indeed poorly sourced by 2021 standards (like this, it was fine by 2005 standards but doesn't cut it today) and not easily repairable (even on a BEFORE search I just get his own bylined work rather than reliable source coverage or analysis about him by third parties), so I've nominated it for deletion. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 25 June 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.