Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Minor Accomplishments of Jackie Woodman

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 keep.

(non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The Minor Accomplishments of Jackie Woodman

[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)

Found one review but nothign else. Just a bunch of PR fluff. Prod contested without valid comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I deprodded with the valid comment: "prods are for uncontroversial deletions only." Never heard of this show, don't care about it, but it is covered by Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Daily News, The Record, The New York Times, The Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Detroit Free Press, Boston Herald, The San Diego Union-Tribune, Hollywood Reporter, Newsday, Philadelphia Daily News, Denver Post, Fresno Bee, San Francisco Chronicle, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROVEIT. Show the sources you found. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

You've indicated in other AfDs that you have the ability to look through PQ and Newspapers.com ... not sure why you didn't do a BEFORE in this case ... Caro7200 (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because I did and found nothing beyond what's already here. Do you want me to just take your word for it when you say "oh, but there are sources published here" when you haven't proven a single one of them? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- As noted, there is more than ample coverage of this topic to meet the GNG. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. If something is reviewed by the LA Times, Variety, and the New York Times, it is unquestionably notable and suggests an insufficient search before nominating.
matt91486 (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Why did none of those come up when I searched? Literally all I got was press releases and unreliable stuff like IMDb. Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 19:24, 17 May 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.