Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Back Stabber (2016 TV 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Back Stabber (2016 TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is bordering on a hoax with the poor attempt to manufacture notability by spamming press releases all over the internet. All of the sources in this article and others that I've come across in my search are more or less user generated from what appears to be the subjects marketing team. I can find nothing reliable to support any claims in this article other than it's existence on Amazon. (Prod had expired but another user declined before deletion.) Appears to be similar to the attempt made at Ryan Zamo to fluff up the sources. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree the article is in a poor state, but I just added an independent reference . I"ll see if I can find more.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * comment It's not just that it's in a bad state, it's a pretty bold attempt at marketing and not even a good one at that. As far as that source goes, that's more or less an interview, so not really useful in the context of establishing notability. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Notability is established by significant coverage in third party sources - this is an example. The fact that the creator of the show has been interviewed for the story should not count against it.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I realize that and it doesn't count against it however it doesn't satisfy the "independent reliable coverage" portion as it's coverage of what someone directly involved with the subject is saying...about the subject. So pretty much the definition of not independent. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the source itself, the publication, that needs to be independent! I'm fairly sure Ryan Zamo does not work for northjersey.com.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The publisher is independent, perhaps however an interview is them talking about themselves/their business ventures. So the content and the source itself is not independent. It's the same idea behind why a press release on Reuters or another independent source isn't considered independent reliable source in terms of coverage...if there is no actual coverage aside from one interview from a local source, that doesn't bode well for the coverage. CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. More is needed anyway. The Huffington Post (not exactly a gold standard as a RS, I know) has this, although the headline and the fact that the writer falls for the ridiculous "considered for multiple Golden Globe Awards" hype isn't a good sign. I'm beginning to think it's going to be difficult to salvage this article once all the puffery is stripped out.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your attempt to salvage it but even that HP article is...well, it's pretty telling that all the things that article cites are the same as what is in this article (and it appears to be more of a blog entry rather than HP's actual content.) CHRISSY MAD  ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  19:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   18:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: I'm not sure I'd call it a hoax, but it's painfully clear that almost every single source is either an interview (not an RS), a press release (not an RS), or some kind of social media site (slashdot is user-submitted content, also not an RS). It is also plain that there has been a concerted and focused attempt to fluff the marketing, which means we must be especially careful in scrutinizing every source that is presented with regard to this article.  We should also be especially careful to not encourage this sort of behavior by allowing this to spiral out of hand.  Let's just delete this and get it over with. Waggie (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as this article is sourced using press releases and interviews. Obvious attempts at WP:PROMO. --  Dane  talk  19:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete this is an amateur production self-published on Amazon, and has not achieved the necessary notability for that type of work. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I did my best to come up with sufficient reliable sources, but no luck. If it ever achieves enough recognition for proper reviews by critics or other similar coverage then it can be re-created at a later date.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Part Hoax, part not notable. Grandiose claims that are not true which are only sourced to press releases with fake claims. On the HuffPo article note the disclaimer on the page, "This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site." Not a Reliable Source. Note also the author has had seven articles on this platform. They include that puff piece about Ryan Zamo's show, A puff piece about Ryan Zamo's appearance on Project Runway: Fashion Startup, another puff piece about Ryan Zamo's appearance on Project Runway: Fashion Startup and a now removed piece on Ryan Zamo's skincare company. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Anything that tries this hard to manufacture notability is definitely either WP:HOAX or WP:A11. Nicnote  •  ask me a question  •  contributions  18:27, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: per Waggie and Nicnote. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2017 (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.