Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikki and Nora

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. Tone 09:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki and Nora

[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)

Procedural nomination (as nominator I'm neutral) as per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_6#Nikki_and_Nora. The article itself was unilaterally converted into a redirect by an anon and was submitted by another to RfD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the following editors involved in the RfD: 74.89.42.17 (talk · contribs); Thryduulf (talk · contribs); AngusWOOF (talk · contribs) --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:27, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pilots that did not get picked up to series are not deemed notable just because they existed, or even because of what historic firsts they would have represented in the alternate universe where they had been picked up — notability depends on what something actually is, not on what it might have been if history had unfolded differently than it really did. There are still a few paths for an unsuccessful pilot to clear the notability test, such as going to air as a one-off television film or special and getting reliable source coverage on that basis — but AfterEllen is not strong enough sourcing to singlehandedly get a failed pilot over WP:GNG all by itself as the only source in play (especially given that the links are both dead.) Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if I put the pilot factor aside here as mentioned, it still does not have any reliable sources (most of what can be found are crowdfunding projects trying to kickstart with no proofs if they are even real or that they are reffered to the same project). Easily fails WP:GNG, nothing more to really add to the discussion.Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2018 (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.