Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atop the Fourth Wall


 * 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. Rlendog (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Atop the Fourth Wall

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No non-primary sources found. I love Linkara, but this is nothing but fancruft and trivia. The only sources are the site itself and Lovhaug's blog, and I found no secondary sources anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:06, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, with regret. I've looked but I haven't found any references either. Maybe one day but not yet. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * NB: The episode list has been deleted before (sometime in 2010). I've still got a copy saved in my userspace for when I do find a reference. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, it is a staple of the host website. Why not give it some time for the page to develop further?- JustPhil 01:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Develop further with what? You can't just hope the Article Fairy will sprinkle secondary sources on it. It needs reliable secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This page has only been up for 20 days. Some truly great articles do take time for everything to be complied. After all, this is a community project. Why go straight for deletion when we can put up a "sources needed" banner?- JustPhil 02:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What good does a refimprove do when there are no sources in sight? I checked Google News and found nothing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect Atop the Fourth Wall to That Guy with the Glasses. Delete for the episode list. Not enough independant coverage at this time. Jarkeld (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, I'm seeing coverage in secondary sources and books. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Where? I ain't seeing it. Google Books turns up only false positives (unrelated works that use the phrase "atop the fourth wall"), and for some reason, it also turns up a bunch of stuff that doesn't have the phrase "atop the fourth wall" in it at all. The only results on Google News are a 404 and a comic book website's video reply to one of his own videos. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not everything has to be available online on the real live Internet all the time. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Burden of proof is still on you. If you know where sources are, show them. Don't just say "but but but, THERE ARE SOURCES!!!!1111!1" unless you can prove it. Otherwise, the article just gets snow-kept and no one ever gets around to sourcing it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears we've both showed them. You just think spouting "404!" "404!", is akin to saying sources don't exist when they do. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I said I found one 404 source. ONE source. ONE ONE ONE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah but it shows on your part a massive failure to understand WP:V, which doesn't say all things have to be online all the time. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And your failure, conversely, to understand that articles need multiple third party sources, not just one. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Furthermore, the Wilkes Barre article doesn't even seem to be about AT4W at all — the writer just says "While I can't tell you who won the last “American Idol,” I can recall the last comic book discussed in “Atop the Fourth Wall." and the article otherwise has nothing at all to do with AT4W. So it's just a one-off mention which doesn't even qualify as coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Glad you can admit that you are able to recover a "404" page, and that "404" doesn't mean things are gone forever, just maybe not immediately on the Internet. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It still does not constitute reliable third party coverage, and I would like you to take a second look at your !vote. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like you to admit you were wrong about spouting "404!" "404!", but we don't always get what we want. :( &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is still 404, but I was able to pull it up and find that's still not non-trivial coverage, so my "screaming 404!" (which I did not) is immaterial. I'd like to see you prove that you have found reliable third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You still haven't acknowledged that "404!" is a totally non-valid argument point to bring up, per WP:SOURCEACCESS from WP:V policy. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

 Maybe that was a bit ambiguous. I never meant to imply that the source was bad just because it was 404'd. I know full well that a 404'd source can still be used. When I said "The only results on Google News are a 404 and a comic book website's video reply to one of his own videos." my implication was "hey, there are only two hits on Google News, period — one of them isn't really a source and I'm not sure on the other due to it being 404", followed by "I was able to pull it up anyway and have determined that it's only a trivial mention". Nowhere have I ever said that a source is unacceptable merely because it's a 404. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this comment, it's most appreciated! &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Keep !voters aren't making any substantial arguments. And anyway, isn't the internet the most likely place to find references to an internet phenomenon? I doubt there's been many scholarly articles written on this subject. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, not enough secondary source coverage. And as an aside, thanks very much to for acknowledging he was wrong in some of his above statements, with this comment, it's most appreciated. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Five seasons and nearly 200 episodes strikes me as sufficient to merit an article. Tag for sources and let it be for a few months under WP:IAR — use common sense. I have confidence in the Article Fairy sprinkling magical secondary sources. I'll get out of the way... Carrite (talk) 20:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The series has been around for four years and mainstream media has ignored it so far; I don't think any sources are coming anytime soon. "Keep and hope it grows" is not common sense, it's pie in the sky with no grounding in policies or guidelines. Do you have a policy based reason to keep, or are you going to continue your rampant "keep because it should be kept" tautological arguments? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:51, 29 March 2012 (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.