Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Into the Black


 * 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. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Into the Black
Internet television show with 1 episode in production, others in pre-production. It hasn't generated any independent coverage, so it fails under WP:V and WP:RS. There's a bit of crystal balling going on too. This Google search and this Yahoo! search bring up no independent sources. I'd also like to point out the AfD for Into The Black, which was deleted on the same grounds. The content is almost identical in both articles. However, please note that this is not a recreation- I just forgot to look up "Into the Black" in addition to "Into The Black". --Wafulz 21:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete ST47 21:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep The Wired news story constitutes independent coverage in my book. Note that that source was not yet present during the previous vote.  It seems to be generating some buzz, at least. -Elmer Clark 22:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually this article was present in the last AfD. It was the first source mentioned. --Wafulz 12:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the article: "...the series is set to premiere in late 2006 or early 2007...". Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and previous AFD. --kingboyk 14:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Elmer Clark. The Wookieepedian 01:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The Wired news article also briefly dedicates one paragraph on the second page, which I don't believe meets "non-trivial third party coverage." --Wafulz 12:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete at present. Restore if it becomes notable.--Runcorn 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, appears notable for having the (unofficial) support of Joss Whedon and the support (including financial) of Nathan Fillion. Xmoogle 18:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the Wired article is about Whedon fan films in general, and this film gets one paragraph in a 2 page article. If that really is the best independent source (I couldn't find anything better), there's no real claim of notability. If it's actually finished and becomes popular, someone can create a new article. - Bobet 13:52, 28 August 2006 (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.