Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelic (Web Series)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Angelic (Web Series)

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

The article is about a web series that does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and lacks reliable, independent sources. Prod removed by new user with the incorrect comment, 'removed proposed deletion - article is sourced and referenced. Subject is minor, but if this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Ali_Zainal_Riza is allowed then this page should be too,' but without the addition of any sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've added multiple sources for them, will add more when I'm not so tired. It's a good article, I've been hoping someone would write one for a while, just needs more links I think.  (I'm new, sorry.) - Jubilee24  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jubilee24 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said in my nomination, this article still does not contain any reliable, independent sources. "More links" is not what is needed, especially if they also do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources.  Rather, what is needed is better sources- even two or three real sources, like newspapers, magazines, and significant online sources, would be enough.  Not blogs, though, not Facebook, not fan pages. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 05:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If I may point out - they have used at least one independent source, that being the Wave magazine. 09:44, 13 November 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.155.201 (talk)
 * "The Leicester Wave" is not an independent source; because its content is generated by its users- it is specifically intended to be a place for artists to market themselves, as it says at the 'about us' page. But the question is moot, since that link does not lead to any information about Angelic. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - For lack of good sources. Also, the article seems to have been copy-pasted at User:Angelicfan/Enter your new article name here. That page does not mention that it's copied from the article, so I'm guessing it's a copyright violation somebody should check. NotARealWord (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Apparently, the article was deleted before. It used to be at Angelic (Internet Series). There seems to be another copy of this article at User:Morthane/Angelic (Web Series) which might also be a copyright violation as the one I mentioned above. NotARealWord (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete per WP:WEB. How non-notable is this?  Enough that the view counts on Youtube are tiny, averaging maybe 100 views and one of them hitting only 9 views.  On a site where thirty seconds of a kitten doing somethng cute can hit tens of millions of views, that's pretty darn non-notable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.