Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winnie-the-Screwed

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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winnie-the-Screwed

[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)

There seems to be no WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this commercial after 2022. It got some coverage at first but does not seem to have had any lasting impact years later. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Disney, and Internet. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:22, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As with films, coverage at the time of publication is sufficient. - E. Ux 04:45, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I disagree with Eva UX and concur with ArtemisiaGentileschiFan that for advertisements, which are mostly run of the mill in nature, it has to meet WP:SUSTAINED and WP:IMPACT. Geschichte (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Geschichte. 82.76.245.249 (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still disagree with that approach, SUSTAINED applying mostly to events and people not pieces of art and other creations. Anyway, I should think that deletion is not appropriate given the existing coverage in reliable sources and as at least three targets for a redirect exist (Ryan Reynolds, the advertised company and Winnie-the-Pooh) - E.—UX 14:52, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
IMPACT is an essay and this short piece explains that it applies mostly to biographic subjects. - E.—UX 14:53, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The CBR source is not SIGCOV, WashPo source is not SIGCOV, Today and Comicbook both talk about the public domain aspect more than the ad itself so fails SIGCOV, and I'm not actually sure how reliable the Fatherly and ScreenRant sources can be counted for GNG purposes. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:50, 9 September 2025 (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.