Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert and Bertie

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. WP:SNOW keep, withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bert and Bertie

[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)

Failed WP:SIGCOV References are generally primary, routine announcements for directors who have been in the mainstream for a year. scope_creep^Talk 01:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met by references 2 and 3. Some of the others are as characterized by the nom, but GNG is met regardless. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 2 is a profile and is on one those clickbait x of y sites, that are used to drive adrvertising. It is a short profile. The 3rd reference is the only reference on that page. scope_creep^Talk 12:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 2 is from Variety, which is a reliable source as per WP:VARIETY NHCLS (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think WP:GNG is met well enough for notability. I can also find a couple more sources that don't seem to have been used in the article, like In The Studio: Bert And Bertie, Preston Waters makes a splash with ‘Lucidity’, and Hawkeye Directors on Breaking the Marvel Mold With Barton and Bishop's Buddy-Cop Comedy. NHCLS (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of sources don't seem to bother you. That first one is an annoucement and is not independent. The 2nd one Bertie, part of directing duo Bert and Bertie, told GamesRadar+ isn't independent either, it is part interview, all indicative of an very early careers. They are either reported in new annoucements of work, or connected to somebody else's context. They're isn't more than 1 secondary source here. That is the whole point of the Afd. scope_creep^Talk 14:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The two sources from WP:VARIETY and one from WP:THR meet the standard of WP:GNG. These are industry magazines for the industry they work in, so clearly they are considered notable in their own business. --Krelnik (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Welll I've done my bit for Blighty. I thought it was far too sono since they have been in the mainstream for less than a year and done sweet FA. How notability standards have dropped. Nomination Withdrawn. scope_creep^Talk 21:00, 18 November 2021 (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.