Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avengers of eXtreme Illusions


 * 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. Reverting previous close (pushed the wrong button)... Close rationale remains unchanged: The two sources highlighted by Luckynumber78 are too brief to qualify under GNG. Randykitty (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Avengers of eXtreme Illusions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a web series whose only substantive claim of notability (as opposed to existence) is "has had X number of views on YouTube" — but that's not what gets web content covered on Wikipedia. Every single shred of "sourcing" here is to primary sources and blogs, with not a shred of the reliable sourcing that it takes to get web content covered on Wikipedia. Basically written like an advertisement, which is not the kind of article that any topic gets to have. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. 1st source is YouTube, 2nd source does not say the series is "popular", 3rd source is probably a primary source (AXI appears to have a web-channel on the site), 4th source is a blog, 7th source is a blog (wordpress site) and does not say that Diane Sawyer called AXI "legendary", 8th source does not say AXI episode "was well-received for being a timely gay-interest adaptation of a Bible story". I agree the article is written like an advert. The sad thing is source 5 is also written like an advert for AXI. Additionally, source 6 is about the director Shawn Welling rather than about the series, and because it's so short it doesn't prove anything more than the fact that the AXI series exist. As a result, the article doesn't have any good sources or significant coverage. 37.188.122.55 (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, the article may have some sloppy sources, but the Dance Spirit magazine (source 5) is a notable publication, as is World of Dance (source 3). The notability of the series is sufficiently proven for this kind of short series overview page. --Luckynumber78 (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, S warm   we ♥ our hive  07:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk   13:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Searches on News, Newspapers and Highbeam returned zero results. The fact that this has existed for 5 years and has such little coverage seems to be the biggest argument against notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:55, 14 August 2015 (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.