Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bismuth (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 no consensus. No consensus with WP:NPASR. After being relisted twice, the only comments seem to be weak keeps. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bismuth (Steven Universe)[edit]

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

Not all individual episodes of TV shows are independently notable. This one was reviewed on the AV Club (which reviews just about everything, meaning that it doesn't mean that much to be reviewed by them) and mentioned on a blog. That's not enough RS for GNG. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. I'll point out that the episode is the first to my knowledge to be a full half an hour instead of a 15 minute short, and it is also the first time that a Crystal Gem from the past has made an appearance. That being said, there is truth that this is of questionable notability, and along the same lines of questionable sourcing as well. I vote keep, but then I am fan, so I am inherently biased here. (PS: I would be alright with merging and/or redirecting the article to an episode list for the series.) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the threshold is number of RS, I would vote keep as there are additional reviews by ComicsAlliance, The Mary Sue, Paste (magazine) and iDigitalTimes. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 17:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 6 September 2016 (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.