Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG15: The Last


 * 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 Cheers,  I 'mperator 21:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

LG15: The Last

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

It is the latest spin-off of the lonelygirl15 web-series, but I can only find one third party source on this, so seems to fail the general WP:NOTABILITY+WP:WEB guidelines. I guess after so many spin off series of the show, people have completely lost interest and nobody even bothers reporting it.--Otterathome (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: An official social show for entertainment company EQAL's LG15 Franchise (not just a spin-off). Professionally produced and featured on the popular LG15.com. Executively produced by EQAL. Comprehensive plot, and very good acting from the cast. Notable in the fact that Jonas Wharton (main character from EQAL's lonelygirl15 and LG15: The Resistance; minor character from EQAL's KateModern and N1ckola) emails one of the main characters in the pilot episode and is seen in one of the first episodes. Kayvahn (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion of how good the show is contributes nothing to the notability and verifiability of the article. And Jones Wharton character, played by Jackson Davis is also up for deletion as he has had only minor roles and hasn't actually starred in anything notable.--Otterathome (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Otterathome, you nominated Jackson Davis (and other lg15 related articles) for deletion, but obviously lonelygirl15 itself is notable. (Though I remember when the lonelygirl15 article WAS deleted off wikipedia in the summer of 2006, which was ridiculous and reversed soon afterwards as it was one of the biggest internet hoaxes of all time.)  Now, as to LG15: The Last, I believe it can/should meet the requirements of notability, I will look to see if i can add any helpful edits to convince you of this.  --Milowent (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The two sources you added are Blogspot.com websites, only reliable non-primary ones can establish notability.--Otterathome (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What's this rule on blogspot sites? At least these aren't cat blogs, but sites dedicated to covering webseries.  The "Web and 1" is written by Andy Asensio, who is also a TV critic for Zap2it.  In any event, I added two more references to cites that are not blogspot sites. --Milowent (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Blogspot sites are not reliable sources. The tubefilter.tv source doesn't mention this spin off, and the newteevee.com just mentions it in the second last sentence so is still trivial.--Otterathome (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Blogspot sites are not reliable sources" - not trying to be difficult, can you cite me support for that? That seems to be overbroad.  Tubefilter is talking about the whole TSIY project, of which The Last was the winner.  The crowdsourced creation of this show is notable, as its the first of its kind that i'm aware of.  --Milowent (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They can't be used to establish notability because I or anyone else can make one. See WP:BLOGS.--Otterathome (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BLOGS does not say that a blogspot blog can not be used to establish notability. Anybody can register a domain name as well.  The two blogpost cites cited among other cites are not anonymous blogs, but by writers in the entertainment industry.  Suggesting that intractable rules apply when they don't doesn't get us anywhere. --Milowent (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The author of the storygas.com blogspot website was the author of the KateModern series, so is not independant of the subject and does not help to establish notability. And the "TV analyst for Zap2it" blog is an off-site blog so is not subject to any editorial control. You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel for sources here.--Otterathome (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the quibbling over the blogspot posts, which are not anonymous, and at least one of which you admit is independent of the subject, what about the cites to salon, tilzy, newteevee, tubefilter, and c21media? When I point out that the wikipedia "rules" don't say what you claim they say, you simply shift to another argument.  This is frustrating and counterproductive. I understand the reasons you may have proposed this article for deletion, but with the additional citation and edits added to the article, and additional knowledge you have gained about the subject, I should think you might consider reevaluating your nomination.--Milowent (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I already debunked those sources above (22:10, 4 August). Yes, I've learnt about it, from unreliable and primary sources, none of which show it is notable. And c21media source is an article about the company working on Harper's Island and doesn't mention this series.--Otterathome (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ???? You "debunked" them? This series is The Show Is Yours, mentioned in all the articles. Milowent (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why is the article called 'The Last'?--Otterathome (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because The Last is the title of the show that won The Show is Yours competition, e.g., in the main page for the show at http://www.lg15.com/, you'll see the "TSIY" in the corner of the name. --Milowent (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it seems very strange you can find sources on talking about the competition but not the winning show. Which kind of shows what ever interest there once was, has died off. Which is why the only source we have for it is in my nom.--Otterathome (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears you have a conflict of interest as you've contributed to a number of lg15 related videos at stated on your page at http://www.lg15.com/lgpedia/index.php?title=Milowent.--Otterathome (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see you continue your smear campaigns rather than arguing for a deletion on a factual basis. Counting obvious fan contributions (e.g. there are several outright marked as "spoof") as a "conflict of interest" would basically ban every fan of everything ever from contributing. Despite your cheap attempt to discredit him, Milowent is not involved with the production of LG15, and there exists no conflict of interest. The fact that he's a fan does not bar him from arguing for its inclusion. ~ Renegade - 80.171.84.166 (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Look, this is something that exists. It's difficult to find sources because it's completely internet-based. Yes, it's a spinoff, but one that is featured on the LG15 website, along with the original shows. I don't know all the rules about deleting articles, but could someone please simply explain to me why this article should not be on wikipedia? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.114.190 (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would it be difficult to find sources on something completely internet based? Sounds like nonsense to me.--Otterathome (talk) 13:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: This source is useful and should not be deleted as pointed out by Milowent, has information regarding a webseries. Yes it is a spin off but it is unique as it is the first to take place within Australia.  Once the series is complete I am sure that there will be more reviews and articles to be added to the page.  Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.250.46 (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't an archive of everything, see WP:ITSUSEFUL. If it is "unique as it is the first to take place within Australia." then you'd need a source to back up that. But sadly there isn't any.--Otterathome (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe LG15: The Last meets the standards of notability to be on Wikipedia. Its been cited in a number of articles, and is unique as the first webseries by fans, based on an establish mythology, that has been raised to the status of an official show as opposed to "fan fiction" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.61.191 (talk) 02:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: The source argument is ridiculous. That's like saying you can't write an article on Christopher Columbus because all you have are his personal diaries. The original source trumps any need for third party sources. I assume no one is arguing the notability of the original series lonelygirl15. The Last is a part of that franchise. If The Last is deleted then with it goes such gems as Joanie Loves Chachi, Archie Bunker's Place and Torchwood.--jenlight (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, so you're comparing a 15 century explorer with an internet show? What? Just because the original show was notable, that doesn't mean this can automatically bypass notability requirements, see WP:NRVE. And all those other shows you mentioned were actually broadcast on TV and have many notable actors in, while this doesn't have any.--Otterathome (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * lonelygirl15 is notable. This is a spinoff of it produced by the producers of lonelygirl15. The notability of the actors is not in question. Since the show belongs to a franchise already established to be notable it is notable. I don't really know how to explain this so you can understand it. Seeing as you have not one other person agreeing with you I'm not terribly worried.--jenlight (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If a company makes one notable service/production, that doesn't mean everything else related to it can automatically bypass the WP:NOTABILITY standards. You'd know this if you'd read WP:NRVE which I linked you to above.--Otterathome (talk) 09:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is the spin off from the successfull lonelygirl15 web series which is notable itself. I put forward the same arguements to keep as Jenlight and milowent. KindredPhantom (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And I just defeated that argument.--Otterathome (talk) 13:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is a very significant series in the history and development of web series. It represents one of the first instances where the nature of a canon mythology has been handed over to the fan base to continue and expand. For that reason alone this article must be kept.--Modelmotion (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have yet to see a reasonable policy-based argument for keeping this article. It is being referenced with sources that fail WP:RS, and it's clear that there aren't any available (a Google News search for this series comes up with absolutely nothing). There is no way for this article to satisfy WP:N. To the LG15 fans, this isn't a vote, you need to state how this article meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, not why you like the show. --  At am a chat 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge: lonelygirl15 is notable for being the first widely recognized web series; its article has a list of 40 references asserting its notability. As such, LG15: The Last is notable in at least two ways:
 * For being a spin-off of a famous franchise. Take a look a Star Trek: The Animated Series - it has a mere 22 episodes and was considered "decanonized" for decades - The Last has 45 episodes and never had its canoncy disputed. Both are spin-offs of popular franchises. TAS is allowed to stay. Or The Lone Gunmen - canceled after 12 episodes. Why is it notable? Because it's a spin-off of a famous franchise. Hell, look at The Fonz and the Happy Days Gang - that's a clear precedent for inclusion of LG15: The Last; it has the exact same format: It's a spin-off of a famous series with little content on the page. The difference is that The Last is relatively fresh, with, as this discussion demonstrates, active and eager fans who can improve the page - in other words, there's still a vast potential for improvement. Can you say the same about The Fonz and the Happy Days Gang? And yet, TFatHDG is allowed to stay.
 * For being yet another ground breaking narrative concept by the same people who already redefined the way online entertainment is done once. Compare Microsoft's Project Natal - so far, it doesn't even exist for consumers. Yet, it's notable - why? Because it's a new, ground-breaking thing by a company which has done ground-breaking things in the past. The only difference is that Microsoft has billions of dollars in marketing money, and thus could place Natal in conferences and magazines, whereas EQAL doesn't have as deep pockets. Or compare the original iPhone page. At that point, the phone was merely an announcement - why was it notable? Because Apple had already revolutionized the MP3-player market, and now targeted a new sector. A company which previously revolutionized an industry set out to do it again. The situation is the same: EQAL has revolutionized the way web entertainment is done (frequently being described as a "pioneer"), and now they are going one step further, basically revolutionizing their own revolution. That is a notable decision in the history of this young form of entertainment, and, as such, deserves mention.


 * In addition the The Show Is Yours contest has been reported on by NewTeeVee twice, by Tubefilter and other sites. NewTeeVee and Tubefilter are primary news sources in the web series segment, with NewTeeVee hosting the industry event NewTeeVee Live, which lists Google, Yahoo, MySpace, Amazon, Apple, AT&T and countless other high-profile technology and media companies as its attendees, and Tubefilter hosting the Hollywood Web Television Meetup, among numerous other things both are involved in. All three sites linked were co-hosts of the Streamy Awards, testimony to their leading position in the industry around web entertainment. As such, at least the The Show Is Yours contest qualifies for WP:WEB under criterion 1: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.".


 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that, in order to not be regarded as an indiscriminate collection of information, "Coverage of a work of fiction and elements of such works should not solely be a plot summary, but instead should include the real world context of the work (such as its development, legacy, critical reception, and any sourced literary analysis) alongside a reasonably concise description of the work's plot, characters and setting." - LG15: The Last has information about the show's background, concise descriptions of the characters, as well as a plot synopsis. As such, it clearly fulfills the necessary standard to not be considered indiscriminately collected information. In addition, as mentioned above, the voters above me signify that the page is not abandoned in any way, so, as said, the page can always be improved to be even less indiscriminate - but only if it stays.


 * Summary: There is at least one clear precedent for pages of this type, as well as several precedents for short-lived spin-offs of famous series who get their own page. As such, the page should be kept simply by virtue of equality, based on precedent. WP:NOTPAPER applies as well, so given the obvious number of people who would like this page to stay, deleting it would serve no purpose and lead to a detrimental experience for users interested in the franchise. (Especially for the last part of the sentence, WP:IGNORE of course applies as well.)
 * Beyond that, even if LG15: The Last as a series should be deemed not notable, the The Show Is Yours concept is most definitely notable, as the canonical continuation of a franchise that has already been deemed notable - lonelygirl15. Not listing The Last anywhere would be like having a page on Buffy, but denying the existence of Angel. As such, even if the decision is made that The Last on its own is not notable, the information on the page should be merged into the lonelygirl15 article, rather than simply be deleted.
 * ~Renegade - 80.171.83.58 (talk) 06:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Only one of the sources you have given is about the show, the rest are about the competition. So it would be appropriate mentioning the competition in the lonelygirl15 article. And the only one mentioning the show name is a duplicate of the one I mentioned in my nomination is the same as . So we still have 1 non-trivial coverage source mentioning the actual show name, the rest are just about talking about the competition. Like I said above, if it is notable then why do we only have 1 source talking about the winners of this competition? Both the show and competition is a big WP:1E that never took off.--Otterathome (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, wrong: mentions "The Last" even with a link to their pilot. If you want to count mentions, at least count correctly.
 * Secondly, just ignoring the multiple precedents for this kind of page I pointed out is not going to make them go away. It is very obvious that being a spin-off of a famous show is notable enough to gain a page or at least mention on Wikipedia, and no one doubts the fame of lonelygirl15. Logically, The Last deserves its page.
 * You also try to ignore the fact that The Last is the canonical continuation of a series that has already been deemed notable by Wikipedia. Removing information on The Last would automatically render Wikipedia's representation of lonelygirl15 incomplete.
 * Deletion is out of the question. Deletion would be akin to having pages on every season of the Simpsons, only to then randomly delete The Simpsons (season 21). Or writing about The Lord of the Rings and deleting the page on The Hobbit. lonelygirl15 is notable. That is undisputed. The Last is the canonical continuation of a notable franchise. Keeping information about it is required for the accurate representation of the LG15 franchise. The only question here is whether to keep or to merge.


 * So let's see: You nominated the page for deletion.
 * I provided several precedents for this type of page, as well as a logical argumentation for its inclusion based on its nature and creators; I pointed out that the page includes information that is necessary for the accurate description of a phenomenon already accepted as notable by Wikipedia. I directly cited the policy stating that the page does not count as an indiscriminate collection of information, and provided references that show that at least the competition this show embodies is notable, and that, as such, The Last deserves mention.
 * And what did you do?
 * You ignored everything I said and tried to get rid of it anyway, with a (false) count of phrases, culminating in "Both the show and competition is a big WP:1E that never took off.", which is pretty much just the experienced Wikipedian's version of WP:JNN. It's your opinion, about notability, based on a conveniently narrow subset of the argumentation that looks like the policy you cite could work with it. It ignores a variety of other factors that speak for the inclusion of this information, be it as an independent page or merged into lonelygirl15.
 * 9 votes to keep versus 3 votes to delete. Multiple arguments based on both notability as well policy to keep it. And yet you insist on deleting it, disregarding all points made, disregarding general inclusion-friendly policies like WP:NOTPAPER and WP:IGNORE, disregarding the effects this deletion has on the completeness of other pages, and not even accepting merging as an option.


 * Scrolling up, it looks like you're the only one actually arguing for the deletion. Sure, Joe Chill and Atama dropped in to voice their opinion, but the only one who goes around and tries to dismiss other people's arguments is you. Out of 40 revisions for this page, 17 (42.5%) were made by you. What's your agenda here? Why exactly are you so hellbent on getting rid of this particular page, no matter what?
 * ~ Renegade - 80.171.53.21 (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because one show is notable, spin-offs of it don't automatically bypass WP:NOTABILITY, see WP:NRVE, which is what most of your argument appears to be based on. And it's WP:1E because of the lack of sources. talks about the competition and spin-off's in general and mentions 'The Last' right at the end. And the publish dates between the two articles are February 6, 2009 & January 28, 2009. You'd think since then there'd be more sources? But no, it remains a big WP:1E.--Otterathome (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Still rehashing the same arguments, still ignoring everything else I said (including precedents), still refusing to reveal why exactly it is so important to you, and apparently only you, that this page is gone.
 * You're the only one actively pursuing a deletion, and the only two supporters you got provide no valid argumentation - Joe Chill did a textbook example of WP:VAGUEWAVE, and while Atama is a little more elaborate, s/he provides no argumentation why the cited resources supposedly fail WP:RS, and is guilty of WP:GOOGLEHITS.
 * The only one actively pursuing this deletion is you, and you're rehashing the same arguments over and over again with no willingness to discuss the actual points made or even discuss a compromise like merging.
 * Seeing that, in combination with statements like "I guess after so many spin off series of the show, people have completely lost interest and nobody even bothers reporting it." or "Both the show and competition is a big WP:1E that never took off." it's easy to see that you don't really care whether the information on the page is Wikipedia-worthy or not. You want the page gone, no matter what.
 * The only thing I'm not sure about is whether you're one of those who lost out in TSIY1 and is trying to get some kind of revenge this way, or if you're just bored and trying to show force by getting a random article removed.
 * Either way, you're the only deletion supporter with anything close to a valid argumentation, and your constant cries of WP:N! WP:N! do not change the fact that the information on the page in question is integral to lonelygirl15, and will end up on Wikipedia one way or another - the only question is if it happens on its own page, or over there.


 * And for whatever Administrator who ultimately decides over this: "There are some subjects that are only known to a handful of people in the world. There may only be a limited number of people who are interested in reading the articles, and very few if any GHits. But this is not grounds for deletion." -> MYTHS.
 * Even if you decide that there's nothing suspicious about Otterathome being the only one pushing this deletion, and even if you agree with the notability issues cited, WP:AQU still applies, and the article should be given a chance. Especially given that Otterathome is the only active supporter of this deletion, and his entire argument sums up as "Not notable! Not notable!", WP:NOPE should imo be given a thought as well.
 * Deleting an article just because a single user is pushing his personal opinion of a series would be unfortunate, and even if the independent page should be deleted, merging is still a valid and much saner option. Total annihilation of information due to a single user's vendetta should not happen.
 * ~ Renegade - 80.171.53.21 (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're suppose to be proving how the article is notable, not discussing the user nominating it.--Otterathome (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - "s/he provides no argumentation why the cited resources supposedly fail WP:RS, and is guilty of WP:GOOGLEHITS." As to the first one, the sources are blogs or the show's own web site. It should be pretty obvious why they aren't reliable, I didn't feel the need to elaborate. As to the second, that's bogus. I was showing that I had made an attempt at finding sources, I wasn't basing my entire argument on a Google search, which is what WP:GOOGLEHITS is about. And you're quoting WP:MYTHS, an essay, as some kind of counter to the WP:N guideline? --  At am a chat 02:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am, because it shows that not everyone has the same extreme deletionist views as Otterathome. Besides, while it may not have the same strength as a guideline, it would hardly be saved and shortcut if it wasn't considered worth a thought.
 * Of course, since you're already contrasting "essays" with "guidelines", you might as well just go forth and compare the meaning of "guideline" to "rule"...maybe after reading the very first box on WP:N, which clearly states "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." - emphasis mine.
 * Don't pretend that WP:N is an unbendable command of the universe that knows no flexibility and whose applicability is solely decided by you and Otterathome. As I pointed out multiple times before, the vast majority of users on this page voted keep, and so far, neither of you has addressed the numerous points for inclusion I made.
 * As for Google...your argumentation was thus: "The sources listed are not reliable. It is clear there are no reliable sources, because I found none on Google.". I would say you pretty much based your entire argument on Google search. You may not have done so intentionally, but it boiled down to "I found nothing on Google, so it's not notable.".


 * @Otterathome: Thank you. Every single time you refuse to address the factual points I make only underlines how little interest you have in actually achieving a consensus. As for your cheap attempt to put the burden of proof on me - the page existed for three entire months before you started your little crusade, there was a consensus about the page at the time of your nomination, and not only that, but your nomination is based on a vastly outdated revision. So if anyone has to prove anything, it's you, to show that your nomination even still applies to the current page.


 * As for both of you, since you are such big fans of WP:N - go read the introduction. It clearly says "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles."
 * Even if a WP:N test failed, nothing would speak against inclusion of the same information on the general LG15 page - in fact, it would be required to appear there, as, as I pointed out countless times before, The Last is the canonical continuation of a series already deemed notable by Wikipedia; simply dropping the information would unnecessarily mutilate Wikipedia's coverage of the topic.
 * Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Nothing speaks against giving a complete overview of a notable franchise. Failing WP:N does not mean the information itself has to leave Wikipedia. As such, the question here should be whether to keep or to merge - deleting the information serves no purpose and renders Wikipedia's coverage of LG15 useless, as it would be incomplete and missing the large majority of the franchise information of this year.


 * And Otterathome's constant refusal to even acknowledge the option of a merge into lonelygirl15, despite the clear relevance of the information to a notable topic, betrays his intention to remove The Last from Wikipedia at all costs.
 * ~ Renegade - 80.171.53.21 (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you appear to be discussing my motives for listing this for deletion, which isn't the purpose of AFDs. The way you speak about the subject makes it sounds like you are somehow connected to the subject. It is your WP:BURDEN to prove it is notable, not mine. And the AFD still applies to the current revision as any third-party sources in the article have already been listed here. And I didn't say it shouldn't be mentioned in the lonelygirl15 article. All I can see is that you are unable to find anymore sources to make it pass WP:N, so have resorted silly/weak arguments. I suggests you read the top of No personal attacks.--Otterathome (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll second everything that Otterathome has said, and I'll also state that I'm not opposed to a merge. I don't see why this show can't be mentioned at the lonelygirl15 article, it's clearly related. If that's a satisfying compromise then that's probably what should happen. --  At am a chat 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also would like to respond to your statement, "You may not have done so intentionally, but it boiled down to 'I found nothing on Google, so it's not notable'." Your analysis of what you think I'm saying is not only incorrect, but offensive. Do not put words in my mouth. You clearly are unfamiliar with WP:PROVEIT or are simply ignoring it. All that I needed to do to make a reasonable argument for deletion was to state that there are no reliable sources in the article. However, I am not a deletionist, and before I declare something notable or not I will make a sincere attempt to find sources, and if I find them I will argue for an article to be kept no matter how poor of a state the article is in. Demonizing editors for making good-faith attempts to find sources, along with your other personal attacks, only sabotages your attempts in this AfD. --  At am a chat 17:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This article isn't even that old, it was created on April 24th and the series hasn't even finished yet. It does seem a bit premature to be deleting an article on a show before it is even done! Can't the firing squad be postponed until the series has at least finished? KindredPhantom (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no time limit on deletion. Many articles are deleted right after creation if the subject isn't suitable for an article. If you feel that the show might gain more coverage after it's done, great, the article can be recreated at that time. --  At am a chat 19:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article says it ended on July 28th 2009 which is sourced from the official website.--Otterathome (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * @Otterathome: Yes, I am indeed questioning your motivation, and that is fully and entirely within both the writing and the spirit of the AFD:

Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus. The page is then either kept, merged or redirected, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, userfied to the creator's user page or user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy.
 * WP:AFD clearly states that the goal is not "delete, unless someone can prove there's no reason to", but a discussion about the merit of the content with a multitude of potential outcomes, including, but not limited to, improvement or merging.
 * Therefore, it is very relevant to this discussion whether you are acting out of the desire to improve Wikipedia and are open to all options that will lead to that result, or because you have a personal vendetta against The Last and the sole goal to remove it from the Wiki.
 * Your original deletion already included language implying a personal distaste for the subject matter, and after I have suggested merging six times now, and even Atama has spoken in favor of it, you are still refusing to even acknowledge the existence of that option. Even after the large majority of participants has voiced support for the page, you have still not shown a single sign of willingness to achieve consensus, or even anything close to a compromise. From everything visible on this page, your only reason for nomination is to get rid of The Last.
 * That is not what the deletion process is for, and your refusal to discuss or even acknowledge alternatives is hindering both the process of this discussion and the ultimate improvement of Wikipedia.


 * Pointing out that you're refusing to participate in a factual discussion and show no interest in consensus or compromise is not a personal attack, it's an observation that is of high relevance to this process, considering you're the original nominator.
 * Trying to paint that as "personal attacks" is weak at best.


 * @Atama: I apologize if I offended you, but that's how I understood your statement. I was not trying to demonize you, it just sounded like all you had done was a Google search and then deemed it not notable. No offense intended.
 * I'm not sure why you're pointing at WP:PROVEIT, as it is a content policy for text-additions, not a guideline for the deletion process, and thus not relevant to the question at hand. Ironically, it would support my statement either way, as it states The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material., and the relevant material added would be the deletion template, thus putting the burden of proof on Otterathome.


 * Nevertheless, since you seem to be more interested in consensus than Otterathome, how about we stop trying to club each other with policy links and try to find a compromise instead? :)


 * Currently, lonelygirl15 is one giant page with everything about the series and forms sort of a central page, linking to multiple smaller pages about the continuations and spin-offs. According to the Creators, the term "LG15" is to be used as a general term for the entirety of the franchise-universe; alas, a page of that name got deleted as a dead end redirect.
 * Would it be acceptable to you if we created a central portal-style page LG15, which keeps general information on the franchise and its smaller series, until they cross the necessary threshold of notability to gain their own page?
 * We would then have:
 * LG15: Housing information on The Last, n1ckola, as well as a general overview of the background and mythology of the franchise, its impact, viewcount variances, media response and treatment, etc
 * lonelygirl15: Purely housing information about that particular series
 * LG15: The Resistance: Purely housing information about that particular series (has been mention in the LA Times blog, CNET and other places...definitely notable enough for its own page.)
 * KateModern: Purely housing information about that particular series (While the references on the page are lacking, a quick Google search ;) will show you a number of mentions on places like The Guardian's site, The Sun's, NewTeeVee, Tubefilter, etc. The page just needs someone to add them.)
 * EQAL: Giving an overview of the company behind everything, its history, key personnel, business endeavors, market position, etc. This page should probably be created anyway, given that they're working with people like Anthony E. Zuiker, Paula Deen and CBS, and have a leading position in the web series market. And yes, they do have enough media mentions to be notable.


 * Would you support such a merging/reorganization effort, rather than just plain deletion? :)
 * ~ Renegade - 213.39.158.142 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would support such a reorganization effort. It's a common compromise to make when you have a series of related articles that lack evidence of notability, but are themselves related to an article that does have notability. I don't see a problem with something like that. --  At am a chat 05:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge - Certainly notable. A quick search turns up a number of references, Tubefilter, NewTeeVee, etc. I support Renegade's reorganization proposal. Byronwrites (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC) — Byronwrites (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Question - is there a way to report Otterathome to request an investigation in his behavior? If you check the page history, you will see that now that it is obvious we are coming to a compromise, he stopped participating in the actual discussion, and he has instead changed his behavior to trying to discredit supportive posts by inventing a conflicts of interest for Milowent and trying to put the validity of Byronwrites' opinion into question, by flagging him for having "few or no other edits outside this topic". (Given that the same is true for me, and I'm not even registered, it's quite clear he's just attempting to artificially reduce the support a merging effort has.)

He is also trying to downplay the significant support the page has in general, by implying in the header the page linked is a plain cry to vote for the page no matter what, while the users actually call for help improving the page:
 * "maybe we need to add more 2 it?"
 * "Yeah, anyone wanna help expand the LG15: The Last Wikipedia article?"
 * "The list of characters is [sort of] done."
 * "Yes! Thank you to whoever edited that page, *cheers* *gives you millions of e-cookies* "

And then on the next page,
 * "re wikipedia: I added some references to the Lg15: the last article, let me know if there are other articles i am missing. That usually helps with any notability debate."
 * "if you wish to keep the article, the best way to do so is to vote keep : --- * Keep - with your explanation."

Otterathome is cherry-picking a single post in a thread full of replies trying to improve the page and clearly stating one should explain why to keep, rather than just vote. In addition, the attempt to frame informing people of the deletion is somehow a dishonest attempt to skew the discussion, when, in fact, WP:AFD has an entire section "Notifying interested people" is just plain ridiculous.

I believe at this point, not even those of you who support the removal/merging of the page on notability grounds can deny that it is obvious Otterathome has some kind of underlying agenda, rather than the urge to improve Wikipedia. His refusal to discuss merging was telling enough, the fact that he now stopped discussing and resorts to these FUD tactics only underlines it.

So...is there some place I can go to have his behavior investigated?
 * ~ Renegade - 80.171.84.166 (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2009 (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.