Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duel Project

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Duel Project

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Duel Project (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)

Poorly sourced article about a bet between two filmmakers. Since it resulted in each of the two filmmakers making films that have their own separate articles, those two articles can (and already do) explain that context and crosslink each other as it is, making a third article about the bet itself superfluous. And the only source provided is a deadlinked blog entry, which is not sufficient to claim passage of WP:GNG here.
Again, Aragami and 2LDK already provide basically the same information as it is, so we don't need a third article that's this poorly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Japan. Bearcat (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Delete. The delete proposal seems sound. If the content is already explained elsewhere, basically restating it here won't help. Nothing really said here that's new. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

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.