Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gillian in Georgia


 * 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. ✗ plicit  13:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Gillian in Georgia

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article about a television "micro-series" (that thing where advertisers format their advertising as short-format "drama" or "comedy" series instead of conventional 30-second commercials), not properly referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. Things like this are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their existence is technically verified by an IMDb page -- the notability test is reliable source coverage about the show by recognized television critics to establish its significance. But the only footnote here is a press release from the network that aired it, a primary source that is not support for notability at all, and the strongest other source I can find on a WP:BEFORE search is a Q&A interview in an industry trade magazine in which one of the show's executive producers is talking about it in the first person -- which is not fully independent of the show, and thus not enough to make the show notable all by itself if it's the strongest source on offer. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this show from having to have much more media coverage about it than this. (Also probable conflict of interest, if you compare the creator's username to the producers' names in the infobox.) Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete per the well reasoned proposal of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I find it a bit perverse to have articles about advertisements, and all the moreso if they're barely-cited stubs. Bearcat's explanation is strong, and there's nothing I can dig up to contradict it. Vaticidalprophet 09:55, 17 April 2021 (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.