Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Fast, Diane Nguyen

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 redirect to

BoJack Horseman (season 1). I know tempers can run high in deletion discussions, especially when editors find themselves frequently on opposite sides of article discussions but let's stop with the recycled accusations. If you believe there is serious misconduct occurring, and not just different understandings of content guidelines, please take the discussion to a noticeboard. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Live Fast, Diane Nguyen

[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)

I'm unable to find any significant coverage of this episode other than the single AV Club review already cited in the article. Restoring the redirect to

BoJack Horseman (season 1) seems appropriate _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and California. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. No sourcing exists at the moment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's quite true, the source I mentioned in the nomination [1] IMO is an example of significant coverage...but we need additional examples to justify keeping the article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on making up stuff. There is sourcing in the article, the nominator mentioned it in their rationale, yet you insist on saying "no sourcing exists". DonaldD23 talk to me 20:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you insist on wikistalking me? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that anyone monitoring any delsorts or similar pages has had you thrust into their faces multiple times per day since you started your current spree? Artw (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I have been monitoring PROD and AfD pages for several years now. With the amount of articles you have nominated and deleted we are bound to comment on the same ones frequently. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenpoundhammer - the sources could be impeached, but anybody can see there are sources that existed at the moment you posted this. Why would you state there was no sourcing, when there is? I'm going to
you aren't capable of reading the article and discerning what superscripts and "References" mean. Jacona (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I thought the implication of "no sources beyond the very meager ones already in the article, which do not constitute sigcov on their own" was obvious, but apparently not. Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 18:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered just not exaggerating/lying all the time? This pattern of behavior from you is incredibly annoying, makes discussion pages look a mess with all the explanation/excuses/counter accusations from you, and wastes a bunch of users time. It is ENTIRELY avoidable if you restrict yourself to truthful statements. Artw (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And where in this discussion did you say any of that? Another untruth. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"No sourcing exists at the moment" had the implied "...beyond the very minimal sourcing already in the article, which I do not feel is sufficient." You want me to spell everything out every time? And maybe lay off the personal attacks? And maybe not twist my words and claim that I'm lying? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"No sourcing exists at the moment" is completely unambiguous, and is completely false, no twisting of words is required to determine that. Your signature states "What did I screw up now?", which invites other editors to tell you, which has been done. As for
WP:ANI where you are so well-known? Jacona (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Don't imply...spell it out every time. This way there is no confusion. And Just pointing out "what you screwed up now". DonaldD23 talk to me 01:06, 27 June 2022 (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.