Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riese the Series


 * 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. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Riese the Series

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This was a disputed speedy deletion candidate which I assessed. I'm not sure if there has been a credible claim of notability inherent in the material of the article -- the creator's disputing of the speedy nomination seems to tacitly contain that. This material has not yet been released for public viewing, but I thought there was a chance that it would qualify under the general notability guideline. Although I don't personally find the citations provided to be reliable within the definition of that term that I know, again there is some doubt in my mind, so I decided to submit this for the verdict of the community. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A recent addition to the reference was added shortly after the dispute began. The reference cited is a new story broadcast on IMDb, the International Movie Database, which is the leading website for all news, updates and information regarding television and film productions. I believe this should satisfy as a claim at a newsworthy source, as there is no other source better connected with this industry or a database more heavily referenced.

In addition, one point of contention regarding the viewership claims it that while the series has not aired its episodes, its supplemental content in the form of the continuing Alternate Reality Game, which also fits into general scheme of the show, as a whole, itself. Rctheaet: talk 20:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The IMDb is not considered a reliable source for this information.  See Citing IMDb.  Accounting4Taste: talk 16:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - it isn't devoid of references but as of now with e series not yet, we only have the Examiner article as a reliable sources. Blog buzz doesn't establish notability, although I wouldn't be surprised if there were more coverage after is released.  No prejudice to recreation then. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. An additional link has been cited that was posted yesterday evening as well. Sci-Fi Wired, the official news area of the SyFy network had coverage on us as well which is referenced. I understand, academically, that a network stations' own news/blog site is not under peer review. That being said, it does have a sizable editing staff and would essentially be under peer review of the the network and marketing persons affiliated with said network. In addition, this network has no affiliation with said series and would be reporting objectively. Finally, regarding notability, I would claim that the leading network for Sci-Fi/Fantasy filmed content reporting on this series, a Sci-Fi/Fantasy production, elevates it to notable as it exposes it to an incredibly large audience and lends it the credibility of its own status. See Citing SyFy.  Rctheaet: talk 16:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There appear to be multiple third party reliable sources listed as references on the article, which would indicate the series meets WP:N/WP:WEB. So what exactly is the problem as far as notability is concerned here? --Zoeydahling (talk) 04:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Lean Keep: For a webseries that hasn't even started yet, its kind of surprising that it has so many sources already, albeit they are not all the world's strongest sources.   I just added a link to a Tubefilter article, and noted that some of the other articles, like SyFy seem to be the types of sources that would naturally cover a sci-fi story.  We already have a decent article going, I see no value to the project in deleting it at this point.--Milowent (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep From all we have learned about this series so far this will be one of the best web series we have seen. The page as it stands provides a good basis on which to build.--Modelmotion (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The author may have jumped the gun a bit, but this topic has received notable attention. If the decision is ultimately to delete I hope the closing admin would consider userfying the article so that it can be enhanced and restored once the series starts. Mathieas (talk) 20:38, 29 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.