Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All the Young Dudes (fan fiction)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the Young Dudes (fan fiction)[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)

The secondary sources are not sufficient to establish notability. Furthermore, the article relies far too heavily on primary sources, and original research drawn from them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some more sources. One is The Roxbury Review, one is Elite Daily, and the final one is The Telegraph. Cedar Tree 03:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How should I update this article to make it sufficient? Should I find better sources? Cedar Tree 04:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it needs reliable, independent sources to show that it passes notability guidelines (either WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG). You should also replace the primary sources to Goodreads, and WP:UGC sources like Fanlore and MyCast, or remove them and the content sourced to them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying to change the AO3 source into the Goodreads and WP:UGC or are you saying to get rid of the Goodreads and WP:UGC? Cedar Tree 04:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of or replace them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just got rid of them and added new ones that are hopefully better. Cedar Tree 05:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I really didn't expect to be voting keep on a Harry Potter fanfic, but the articles in Slate and The Telegraph are substantial and enough to scrape past WP:NBOOK criterion one (assuming fanfiction is considered a book). The article does need work (for example, I wouldn't cite the Roxbury Review, which appears to be a high school student paper). Spicy (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the Slate and Telegraph articles are sufficient to meet GNG.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the secondary sources found are enough to establish notability. While this article needs work, that's no reason for deletion. Daranios (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and changes to article. Artw (talk) 23:43, 16 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.