Talk:Pop Drunk Snot Bread

Requested move 24 April 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. If there is still concern that the article does not meet our requirements, please file an AFD nomination. Primefac (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Drunk Snot Bread → Draft:Pop Drunk Snot Bread – Db-g4 rejected due to lack of snowball consensus, current article has one reference and is a stub with no indication of notability. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - have you done a WP:BEFORE search? Coverage exists now. There's no reason it can't be improved in the mainspace. Sergecross73 msg me 14:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons. I did a quick WP:BEFORE and found lots of reviews, coverage, etc, and added them to the article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Lugnuts' additions. – ².O.^Boxing 18:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The references have been added, the reviews themselves have barely been inserted. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to send something back to the draft space. Either fix it yourself or leave it to someone else. Sergecross73 msg me 22:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The article may be a stub but the present sources clear and more are available. No need to draftify, just expand what's already here. QuietHere (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - article now has more five references, not one. I don't see that Draft is an option though - the next step would be AFD if one thinks it's not notable. Also, it looks like just before starting this move discussion, that User:Jax 0677 started a discussion at WP:AN asking for deletion of this article. Isn't this WP:FORUMSHOPPING? Nfitz (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it could be expanded, it is more than sufficient to remain in the article space. --Jayron 32 14:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The purpose of draftification is to allow an article to devleop. This is clearly and increasingly sufficiently supported by reliable sources to remain in article space. Lugnuts deserves a Barnstar of Rescue, and will likely get one after Jeopardy toninght. If the Herculean effort expended in trying to use a WP:G4 template to delete an article whose prior AfD had not resulted in delete, and then continued in a disruptive WP:AN thread, followed by this, had been spent in finding sources, it would have been so much better for everyone. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.