Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kung Faux


 * 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   no consensus. –MuZemike 23:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Kung Faux

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A contested prod. Per note from the prod, "I cannot find any reliable sources about this show, I can find some directory listings but that's it. Fails WP:V and GNG." Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The show did exist, and was released on DvD. Was able to verify those claims (here and here). However, there's nothing to indicate significance about this series. No critical acclaim, no cult following or significant coverage; so fails WP:GNG. Akerans (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources provided. Only found the EW review when I looked, but since other reviews have been found I believe that satisfies the review criteria. Akerans (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nice presentation and powerful external links. It's fanboy but it's well done and should be of interest to WP users. Worthwhile content, Use Common Sense. Carrite (talk) 19:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How about use content and deletion policy instead? That seems like a much better idea for an AFD discussion.  Since we have Michael Neumann stating that "only I know what it stands for", I challenge you to come up with a source for the content describing the "Skull &amp; Chopsticks" logo in this article that is someone other that M. Neumann talking about xyrself.  And since the improper source (M.  Neumann's WWW site) currently cited for that is the only source cited in this entire article, I further challenge you to come up with any independent reliable source documenting this entire subject, showing that this article is at all verifiable from independent and reliable sources, rather than WWW advertising by apparently the same person who wrote this and a little walled garden of articles surrounding it.  It's time to show some independent reliable sources documenting this subject in depth.  Nothing less will do. Uncle G (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to your opinion and I to mine. Here is the question to ask oneself in all deletion debates: "Is Wikipedia better off or worse off if this cut is made?" There are all sorts of guidelines, mark that well guidelines, for inclusion and arguments based in doctrine are given requisite weight by the closing administrator. If you don't like my logic, that is your right. Make your opposing case and let the chips fall where they may. Carrite (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is definitely better off when people follow content and deletion policy in AFD discussions. Rise to the challenge and cite sources to support your case, or continue thinking that this is a matter of "guidelines" that you can just ignore and watch your case fall apart.  I observe in passing that this sort of basic explanation of how to make a proper argument that will hold water and what happens when one doesn't, I more usually find myself giving at AFD to help Wikipedia novices who don't yet understand the project.  Sources! Sources! Sources!  Uncle G (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep -- DVDs got a decent review in EW -- http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,448947,00.html. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's another review -- http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/feb/09/bruce-campbell-and-kung-faux/--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - not sufficiently notable. Notability based on reviews requires multiple reviews in reliable sources. I am open to changing my opinion if such sources are found. Yworo (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete in the spirit expressed by Yworo. MtD (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Yworo, and also that WP:ITSINTERESTING is not valid reasoning for keeping an article. This article shows zero notability.  We don't decide what's good or bad for Wikipedia - the subjects of articles do that themselves by how notable they are.  It's our job to determine ithe NOTABILITY of the subjects. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not seeing the problem finding sources such as Billboard. I see the series compared with MST3K on Google Scholar which seems a significant accolade. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - has sources, and the article makes several reasonable claims to notability (notable participants, widely distributed, merchandise by notable company). Robofish (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, there are plenty more sources available, though mostly self-published ones, e.g. ,. Robofish (talk) 00:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The coverage needs to be in reliable sources, at least one of these is a blog.  Active  Banana   (  bananaphone  01:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nationally broadcast/cablecast television program with, as Sarek of Vulcan points out, nontrivial coverage in major publication/media. It may be a lame knockoff of MST3K, but if we deleted all the articles on lame knockoff TV series we'd remove 90% of the TV coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sources exist, although most require payment. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete because as of right now the article fails WP:N because it only contains self-published sources. If people on this discussion keep saying "sources exist" then why is no one adding them?  elektrik SHOOS  02:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should we work on an article when editors like you say that it should be deleted? It is more sensible to wait until this disruptive threat has been waived.  In my comment above, I provide a link to a source and more may be readily found by using the search links at the head of the discussion.  Editors who simply look at the current version of the article are failing to consider the topic properly.  The article is not yet complete and so, per our editing policy, should be left in mainspace for further improvement. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * AfDing articles is neither disruptive nor a threat. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The point I'm making is that despite everyone saying that 'sources exist,' none have been added, which leads me to believe they're either insufficient to pass WP:N or completely nonexistent. There's WP:IMPERFECT and then there's egregiously underdeveloped with little hope of improvement, and this article fits into the second category. And in any case, saying the article may eventually be improved and should be kept feels like WP:MERCY.  elektrik SHOOS  06:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What, in what SarekOfVulcan, Colonel Warden, or Robofish write above, leads you to believe that they're citing nonexistent sources? When people cite sources at AFD, the correct next step is to review what is cited, not to ignore it for the quite bogus reason that "It's not in the article therefore it's nonexistent.".  We're here to collaborate, furthermore.  If you want sources cited in a discussion to be in an article, then pull out your editing tool and collaborate with other editors.  They did the work of finding them.  The least that others can do is fix up and transfer citations.  This sharing of the burden is the way that we write collaboratively. Uncle G (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2010 (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.