Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poor Paul


 * 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. MuZemike 00:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Poor Paul

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A web-series going since 2008, I found one third-party source on a digital blog which is exclusively about internet web-series. Due to the lack of third-party sources it fails WP:N+WP:WEB. So delete. Otterathome (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Dude, this article was created three days ago. You didn't give the creators enough time to flesh the article out properly. Nevertheless, it meets WP:WEB #3, which says "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster;[7] except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)." as it is distributed by KoldKast.TV. Additionally, third party sources:        etc. The article therefore meets WP:WEB AND WP:N (which it actually does not need to meet explicitly if it meets a more specific category, per WP:N - "A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: ... Web content." Since the article in question clearly meets Wikipedia notability policies, I would suggest that the nominator withdraw this AfD. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some reliable sources to backup your claim about the KoldKast.TV being respected and having editorial oversight would be nice. Sources 1, 2, 3 and 6 are from tubefilter.tv, a digital blog that blogs exclusively about web-series'. 4, 5, 6, and 7 are press releases, and 8 is a one off mention. So it doesn't 'clearly' meet our guidelines I'm afraid.--Otterathome (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Read KoldCast.TV's about page : "KoldCast is seriously selective about entertainment programming. While YouTube-style videos are often entertaining, and you’ll see some of the very best here, we are confident that you’ll also enjoy watching the very best shows, movies, extreme sports, comedy, music, and no-BS news, all produced at the next level." Backs up about KoldCast. If that doesn't suffice for you, read this third-party source that says the same thing  About my sources: only source [7] (Huntington News) is a press release, if you are going to claim otherwise, please prove it. Your comments about Tubefilter.tv being "a digital blog that blogs exclusively about web-series" are irrelevant. Please show me anywhere in Wikipedia policy that states you cannot use a source that is an expert in a field as a third party reliable source? It doesn't. If that were true, you couldn't use science journals for scientific articles or TV Guide magazine articles for TV shows. Also, yes, [8] (bignews.biz) is a one-off mention, but one that states "2009 Webby Award Honoree web series Poor Paul" which proves the show meets #2 of WP:WEB, which states "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" Now that I've proven that this article meets ALL THREE qualifications for WP:WEB, any one of which alone would suffice, I'd say it's time to withdraw this nomination, wouldn't you? --Zoeydahling (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Still need a third-party source saying the koldkast website is 'respected' or described in a similar way. I'm not suggesting anything is wrong with tubefilter, but it's not very good for showing this type of content is notable. It only covers web-series' content, so it is very likely there would be content about it there anyway. And as their about page states "to grow the audience of web television" meaning it's a blog to promote this type of content. I will list other similar examples where it wouldn't be a good way to show something was very notable:
 * A computer virus write up on an anti-virus vendors website. (all computer viruses get write ups)
 * An article about a BitTorrent client on the TorrentFreak blog
 * Any other type of content that is covered on a blog that only covers that specialist content with the aim to promote that type of content
 * The fact is has been going since 2008 and has only been covered by a single web-series blog suggests it has yet to become notable outside of that scene making it WP:FANCRUFT. I have provided evidence showing those source I mentioned are in fact press releases:
 * Source 4 - "MLC PR" the PR stands for press release.
 * Source 5 - Notice the 'send2press' newswire, the company has used the send2press.com service.
 * Source 6 - is another tubefilter.tv, not a press release, my mistake. I think I meant 8, see below.
 * Source 7 - "From a Koldcast Press Release"
 * Source 8 (didn't notice that before) is also a press release, a website purely for press releases only.
 * So currently for determining notability, we only have a bunch of articles from tubefilter, which isn't very good for showing it is notable for reasons described above. And yes, I will happily close this AFD when it passes our guidelines, you don't need to remind me.--Otterathome (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The third party source about Koldcast was provided. See above.
 * Additionally, what you have said about your sources is still just your opinion and has yet to be shown to be rooted in any official policy. Your first example about computer viruses is irrelevant because Tubefilter is not just an indiscriminate list of every web series that has ever existed, but a news source about the web entertainment industry. I have no idea about BitTorrents or TorrentFreak, but I'm assuming it's the same deal.
 * And once again, for your number three point, you are still going by opinion and NOT policy.
 * A good for instance here would be: The New York Times exists to promote journalistic integrity and unbiased news stories, right? (I mean, that may not be their exact mission statement, I did not look this up, but all newspapers would aim towards such a goal, no?) Would it then be reasonable to state that a New York Times article, or ANY article in a news publication about journalistic integrity be not considered a reliable third-party source because the newspaper is trying to promote such principles? Of course not. Therefore, your argument falters.
 * I'll need to relook at the other sources, but my understanding of them was that they cited press releases, but were articles on their own. I'll double check when I have a bit more time.
 * Additionally, your statement about this being WP:FANCRUFT, is once again an opinion, and even if it were, it is completely irrelevant to this deletion discussion.
 * Regardless though, there are multiple reliable third-party articles on the series now, even with just Tubefilter, so it meets WP:WEB #1, it was a Webby Honoree, which meets #2, and is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators which meets #3.
 * In conclusion, it meets ALL THREE WP:WEB criteria, where meeting any ONE would suffice, so it would seem pretty clear that the article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. And since you said you would close this AfD once such a thing was proven, I believe it is now time for you to follow through.
 * --Zoeydahling (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You sourced the KoldKast thing from the same website, don't you have any other sources which don't intend to promote this type of content? And sources that count towards notability need to be independant, as press releases are obviously not, we can't use them, see WP:N. Tubefilter is purely only about web tv type content so they will cover most web tv content. I'm not questioning the reliabilty of it, but it's bad example using such a site to show something is notable. I linked you to the fancruft page, as this appears to be the type of content we're dealing with. So we're still stuck with these not so good tubefilter sources.--Otterathome (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Until you can find me where in Wikipedia policy it says that you cannot use Tubefilter as a third party reliable source to help establish notability for a web series, I am forced to assume you are still arguing your opinion and not any real issues that are rooted in the guidelines of this wiki. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As the website intends to promote the content it writes about, it would be impossible to write a neutral article about it (WP:NPOV). It also borders the issues mentioned in citation 6 on WP:N.--Otterathome (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand what is meant by "promoting web series" or however they phrase it. They are not there to promote every single web series that ever existed. There are plenty of web series that they do not cover. Instead, they are trying to promote the genre as a whole, to make it a well respected entertainment medium along the lines of cinema or television. Once again, TV Guide exists to promote television shows and the New York Times exists to promote journalistic integrity, but that does not mean those sources cannot write neutral articles on the subject. Tubefilter is a well-respected source in this genre, and is cited by many major news outlets (see the tubefilter article for examples). Also, your comment about WP:N citation 6 makes no sense to me, as Tubefilter is none of the things listed, nor does it resemble any of the things listed. --Zoeydahling (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Our mission at Tubefilter is simple – to grow the audience of web television."


 * It is website that specifically covers only that type of specialist content and intends to grow the audience of that type of content. If that is the only website you can find non-trivial sources which qualify for WP:N, then it fails WP:N.--Otterathome (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Still opinion, not rooted in any policy in WP:N. Nowhere does it say that you cannot use specialist sources for determining WP:N. --Zoeydahling (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Tubefilter is just one source, WP:N requires more than one.--Otterathome (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are multiple sources. Tubefilter has multiple articles, that is multiple sources. Regardless of who is correct here, which obviously I believe I am, while you believe you are, the article does not need to meet WP:N explicitly if it already meets a more specific criteria, which it does through WP:WEB so this argument about WP:N is really moot. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm ok, so you agree the only non-trivial sources that qualify for WP:N are from Tubefilter then?--Otterathome (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I actually believe this source qualifies because it cites a press release as a source for their article, but is not an exact copy of a press release, as far as I can tell. Regardless though, even if Tubefilter were the only source, what difference would it make? This article still meets wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a press release, which is why it starts with "MLC PR". There's no author name, and it says "Please visit: www.monaloring.com for info" at the end, also googling a unique sentence from it show it is posted on many different websites including press release ones.--Otterathome (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Nominator apparently can't google well per Zoeydahling's information.  Nominator has also nominated Tubefilter for deletion (the one source he/she found that they then discount, but is only person arguing for deletion of that as well.  Nominator also has a recent history of nominating webseries related articles for deletion regardless of whether the articles actually merit deletion, there's lots of drama out there about this I won't rehash here.--Milowent (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Zoeydahling. The article needs serious work, though.
 * Wait...a bad-faith nomination from Otterathome? What a surprise! THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Go troll-vote elsewhere, or you could actually add something constructive for once.--Otterathome (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * With your history, you have a lot of nerve saying someone else is trolling. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have speedied one of the articles that Otter has tagged for notability. How about improving the articles instead of complaining about bad faith? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "you could actually add something constructive for once". I admit, I didn't expect that to happen.--Otterathome (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice to hear you don't want my help, because I'm not helping you -- I'm trying to help the encyclopedia.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather discuss about the actual article instead of me. Archiving this as it's already gone off-topic. But everyone is still free to comment on the article.--Otterathome (talk) 17:55, 21 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.