Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beauty and the Beast: Ugly Face of Prejudice

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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty and the Beast: Ugly Face of Prejudice

[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)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2011 DonaldD23 talk to me 14:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Discrimination, and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2 sources currently in the article (1-2 paragraphs in independent books), And also: The Times (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/wednesdays-tv-beauty-and-the-beast-ugly-face-of-prejudice-vx8zdd587p9), The Trinidad Guardian (https://www.guardian.co.tt/article-6.2.427232.4d2a20d4cf), The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2012/jul/09/line-of-duty-twenty-twelve), and The Telegraph. I say: Keep.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources found by Mushy Yank in The Times, The Guardian, and The Daily Telegraph. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Beauty and the Beast: Ugly Face of Prejudice to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of new sources cited here. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:38, 29 September 2023 (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.