Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Any Sport in a Storm

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. Daniel (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any Sport in a Storm

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Any Sport in a Storm is not a notable The Owl House episode. If this exists, you can claim that every episode that can be backed up by 4 sources should have an article. 🍁🏳️‍🌈 DinoSoupCanada 🏳️‍🌈 🍁 (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what's the rationale for deletion? The nominator states the article has four sources. matt91486 (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, Comics and animation, and United States of America. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--I was considering arguing that SKCRIT 1 applied, but the nominator does advance a rationale that, if true, would justify... well, not deletion, but merging or redirection to a show or season list article. But it's not a correct argument. Four reviews and a reception section doesn't demonstrate anything other than with our existing notability guidelines and the plethora of sites publishing reviews on the internet, that yes, pretty much any episode of anything is likely notable. My one caveat is that I am not familiar with the sites publishing these, but since the nominator did not question their reliability, independence, etc. I am presuming them to be fine for their use in the article. Jclemens (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do tell me how you can consider this TV-guide-like listing "a review". _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. The nominators rationale is not reasonable, many TV series have articles for each episode.★Trekker (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is in-depth, but is the source (TV Source Magazine) reliable? It claims to be an online magazine, but what does it really mean these days? They solicit submissions of reviews in exchange for some profit sharing, there is no mention of editorial controls. The other review in The Geeky Waffle is likewise problematic, I'd call that site a blog, it's staff consists of anonymous people (only revealing their first name) and a dog. IMHO the sources are borderline unreliable, and as such, there is no SIGCOV meeting coverage in RELIABLE sources. The other two footnotes are to a TV schedule page (totally useless for purpose of establishing notability), and The Gamer (website) short recap/review of three episodes including this one, which IMHO does not meet SIGCOV (although this site may be reliable at least) . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: TV Source Magazine does profess to have a board of editors, articles seem to be written by a regular staff rather than being user-generated content. "They solicit submissions of reviews ..." seems to me to say nothing more than that they'd like to hire additional staff. Daranios (talk) 19:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am too strict assessing this source. I'll ping @VickKiang who has done similar assessments in the past in case they'd like to chip in here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak redirect to List of The Owl House episodes--for the time being, at best--until enough SIGCOV comes home to roost (no pun intended). (Typing as a Disney fan.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 11:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is easily established by numerous reliable independent sources. Serratra (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC) Striking vote by blocked sock. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
Which ones? Please be precise, otherwise it's just WP:THEREARESOURCES. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I'm unable to find SIGCOV beyond the single source discussed above, which could easily be folded into a season article. The show is clearly notable, and each season could likely have a decent article, but based on what I've seen so far individual episodes are likely not notable. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Vanamonde93. It's hard to find a source that's both reliable and in-depth. This could be folded into the season article, and redirects are cheap. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:31, 9 February 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.