Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neurotically Yours (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Skomorokh 19:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Neurotically Yours
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has been deleted multiple times and was create protected. It is no more notable now than it was at the times it has been deleted. SMP0328. (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * see also Articles for deletion/Jonathan Ian Mathers. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 15:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was me who declined the speedy this time. The subject has been covered in multiple independent sources including The Triangle Centre Daily Times same paper, an earlier date (both university papers, however, so not so strong in making a case for notability) but also in Silicon Valley's Metro, and in the Greensboro News Record (July 29, 2004; p. 14), which calls it a "cult favorite", describes some of the characters, and notes a DVD release of 40 episodes of the series. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am arguing that the article lacks notability. Basically, that means it is not worthy of being its own article. Multiple times earlier versions of this article have been held not to be notable and so have been deleted, reliable sourcing notwithstanding. SMP0328. (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the coverage in multiple reliable sources demonstrates that it meets the general notability guideline, which is the usual way of showing notability. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- Paul Erik's sources above are enough, in my mind, to meet the basic requirements of notability. The article isn't very well written, granted, but that can be improved on, and is a matter for editing, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - I was the person who requested speedy deletion. Notability is established by multiple, reliable, third-party references... we seem to have three here, although the mentions in the better two are somewhat brief and one is a student newspaper. I would say if something less trivial can be found then I'll switch to keep, for now I say delete. I'm not sure how it was recreated, even though it was salted last March... &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How did Neurotically Yours get recreated? I'm the editor who had it "salted" (i.e., creation protected) back in March? SMP0328. (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be my fault. It was created this time at Neurotically yours, which was not salted, and then I moved it to Neurotically Yours. If there was an alert that it was creation-protected, I missed it. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason it was repeatedly deleted, and then salted (although a loophole was accidentally found), was that each of the earlier versions of the article degraded into a mess of unsourced descriptions of the characters. Sources would be requested and never provided. Each time ultimately the article was deleted. The salting was so that wouldn't happen again. As you can see here, this has already started with this version. SMP0328. (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is, last I checked, still a matter for editing, not deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - there is coverage in non-college press. Although not substantial, it's enough to squeak by for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Mr. Erik's input confirms notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not a strong keep, but I think there's enough out there to keep this. I also note that the 1st deletion discussion over 3 years ago was a keep as well (yeah yeah NOTAGAIN, but still). --Milowent (talk) 13:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note this article was deleted last year as part of the deletion of a related article. SMP0328. (talk) 15:42, 1 September 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.