Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foursome (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 keep.  MBisanz  talk 19:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Foursome (web series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I originally prodded this article as being an unreferenced article that failed to credibly assert notability, but it was deprodded when some references were added. However, the new references do nothing to establish notability. The first confirms the release of YouTube red and does not mention the series at all, while the other 3 are primary sources, straight from the YouTube blog. I have been unable to find mention in reliable secondary sources that would establish notability.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree with the nom's assessment of the sources and I am unable to find additional coverage that would establish notability. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete "Self-pushed virtual series". Millbug  talk 03:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment/Keep - I cleaned up the article a bit and added more reliable sources and will continue to do so as I find them, but I think now the article has enough sources to show notability. Andise1 (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, several of the added refs were used to support the plot section, which was a copyright violation, having been copied from YouTube and imdb.
 * I saw that and after the plot was removed I went ahead and rewrote the plot using my own words, so I put the refs back in. Andise1 (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, almost. The plot is still very similar to the plot summary in this article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Changing my !vote based on newly added references. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2016 (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.