Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emesis Blue (2023)

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. ✗plicit 00:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emesis Blue (2023)[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)

An animated fanmade film released on YouTube. Article fails GNG and WP:NFILM/WP:NWEB. No references in article, BEFORE found nothing. Tried to draft, but a duplicate declined draft article exists already at Draft:Emesis Blue (2023), so drafting is not an option. // Timothy :: talk 01:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a copy-paste move from a draft created in AfC. The AfC draft was rejected 20 June 2023. Little seems to be changed from the rejected draft, including lack of citations and lack of proof regarding notability. Significa liberdade (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in the unlikely event that the article is kept, it should be moved to Emesis Blue. Wikishovel (talk) 02:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was expecting this to be a complete non-entity, but it is actually all over social media and fandoms etc., just nothing that would come even close to meeting GNG. Given that the film is quite new, better sources might appear at some point, and in that sense draftification could be an option (and would be doable by simply changing the title slightly). However, this seems pointless as a draft already exists, and that is indeed the 'original' (of which this is merely an ill-advised copypaste move), which can sit in the draft space even if/when this copy is deleted. As for deletion rationale, per nom (no references, no sign of notability of any flavour). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFILM 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If this article can be improved, they can do it in the draft. If the draft did not exist, I would vote draftify. Asparagusus (interaction) 13:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with all arguments above given the existence of the draft already. -2pou (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article has no independent sources, and so fails both notability and verifiability. Leave the draft alone. The draft was declined, not rejected. If reliable sources are found, the draft can be improved and resubmitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the article were kept, a history merge would be necessary because of the copy-paste. It isn't necessary because the copy-paste should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Little context + not a single source. —theMainLogan (t•c) 01:33, 4 September 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.