It appears editors who voted "keep" in the previous discussion simply put "The Infographics Show" on Google and copy and pasted random links, which is textbook LOTSOFSOURCES and a sloppy way to argue for keeping an article. If these trivial, obscure and sketchy sources is all they could find, one would be hard pressed to find anything better. There seems to be nothing notable about The Infographics Show. DannyC55 (Talk) 23:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC))

the crterion is sourcable, not currently unsourced. DGG ( talk ) 05

19, 20 June 2022 (UTC))

It is sometimes claimed that citations in the humanities are lower than those in the sciences, but no statistical evidence is produced to support that claim. As I have illustrated above, some humanities scholars have many thousands or even tens of thousands of citations to their work. Another factor is that humanities scholars often publish solely or in small groups whereas science scholars may publish in large groups. These issues have to be factored in. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC).)

I do not feel this is a valid argument, and does not address the lack of WP:RS. As of right now, the only sources in the article are Wayback links to the comic itself, or the WCCA's website. I found absolutely no results on Google News, Newspapers.com, Google Books, or ProQuest, and the comic name turns up <30 hits on regular Google. Winning the WCCA is not a sign of webcomic notability in and of itself if no further sources exist; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack (webcomic) (3rd nomination) as but one example. If there are indeed sources hiding somewhere, then Gormongous or any other editors arguing to keep must prove that reliable third-party sources exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC))

In the past, the Web Cartoonist's Choice Award has been deemed not to be a major player for WP:NWEB standards. The sourcing here is very superficial at best beyond the award (which, by the way, isn't even mentioned on the award's Wikipedia article), and a WP:BEFORE turned up nothing better. In short, I don't see any reason this is a notable webcomic. It's just another dusty piece of cruft from a different era of web content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC))

Richard Pretsel meets none of these. Also did search and found the following sources. Generally need two independent reliable significant coverage of the person for WP:GNG. Found none.)

It is sometimes claimed that citations in the humanities are lower than those in the sciences, but no statistical evidence is produced to support that claim. As I have illustrated above, some humanities scholars have many thousands or even tens of thousands of citations to their work. Another factor is that humanities scholars often publish solely or in small groups whereas science scholars may publish in large groups. These issues have to be factored in. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC).)

One film doesn't qualify him for WP:CREATIVE (I still need to evaluate its coverage as the page was created by the same author of this page) Unsuccessful runs for local elections doesn't qualify him for WP:POLITCIAN. BriefEdits (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC))

Although the previous AfD was recent, the article should be reevaluated because it quite clearly fails WP:NSPORT which requires a minimum of one SIGCOV source to be provided. –dlthewave ☎ 04:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC))

I don't have access to the source, but this article is either plagiarizing from it or contains unattributed translation from the Chinese language Wikipedia version of this article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC))

Looking for other sources gives e.g. this about the baronetcy, which doesn't mention Thomas or his role in the creation of it. This is the only thing which perhaps verifies the bare existence of this Thomas, but he is said here to have died in 1639. Fram (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC))

Does not appear to meet WP:NBIO or the WP:GNG. Sources are primary, non-independent and/or trivial passing mentions. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC))

The first AFD saw every participant calling for a different result, and discussion abruptly died off with no further participation even after two relists. As a result, the first AFD closed as "no consensus". It is my hope to find a consensus this time. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC))

This is primarily a puff piece and all the competitions he entered were local heats etc Gbawden (talk) 07:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC))

An article was created in article space, and was moved by reviewer User:UnitedStatesian to draft space. This copy of the article was then created in article space. There is already a draft, and this article does not satisfy general notability, so should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC))

Although the previous AfD was recent, the article should be reevaluated because it quite clearly fails WP:NSPORT which requires a minimum of one SIGCOV source to be provided. –dlthewave ☎ 04:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC))

Although the previous AfD was recent, the article should be reevaluated because it quite clearly fails WP:NSPORT which requires a minimum of one SIGCOV source to be provided. –dlthewave ☎ 04:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC))

Also, on Google Scholar she has 1864 citations (the highest one has 356 citations). Ibrahim.ID ✪ 01:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC))

One film doesn't qualify him for WP:CREATIVE (I still need to evaluate its coverage as the page was created by the same author of this page) Unsuccessful runs for local elections doesn't qualify him for WP:POLITCIAN. BriefEdits (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC))

This article about a television show is too soon and does not satisfy general notability or television notability. There is nothing in this article that refers to significant coverage or coverage by independent sources. It only states that the series will air in two weeks. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC))

The first AFD saw every participant calling for a different result, and discussion abruptly died off with no further participation even after two relists. As a result, the first AFD closed as "no consensus". It is my hope to find a consensus this time. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC))

the crterion is sourcable, not currently unsourced. DGG ( talk ) 05

19, 20 June 2022 (UTC))

It appears editors who voted "keep" in the previous discussion simply put "The Infographics Show" on Google and copy and pasted random links, which is textbook LOTSOFSOURCES and a sloppy way to argue for keeping an article. If these trivial, obscure and sketchy sources is all they could find, one would be hard pressed to find anything better. There seems to be nothing notable about The Infographics Show. DannyC55 (Talk) 23:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC))

Trying to find actual sources about the song turns out to be fruitless. Nothing in GNews[17] or GBooks[18] (the one source is by Schlegel so doesn't count), and the 25 regular hits[19] produce nothing useful not already in the article. A redirect to Helmut Schlegel may be a good alternative for deletion. Fram (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC))

--GustavoCza (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC))

--GustavoCza (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC))

--GustavoCza (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC))

--GustavoCza (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC))

--GustavoCza (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC))

There is no coverage other than the mention of the chart position, and no coverage is not significant coverage. Recommend Redirection to Fundamental (Mental As Anything album) as alternative to deletion for both article and draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC))