Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMG4


 * 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 delete. czar 16:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

SMG4

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Cannot find enough evidence of notability. Written from fan’s POV, almost entirely consisting of references to YouTube videos. Part of a sequence of articles written with COI editors, all promoting Glitch Productions and their Youtube channel. Equine-man (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, this is OverDriver05, one of the main contributors to the SMG4 Wikipedia article, and i would like to appeal for the survivability of the page.

First off, SMG4 has been around since 2011, and its success leads to the creation of Glitch Productions, of which the series' creator, Luke Lerdwichagul, founded alongside his brother Kevin Lerdwichagul.

Second, Glitch Production currently produced SMG4, as well as the independent animation studios' other projects such as Meta Runner and Sunset Paradise, the latter being a direct spin-off to SMG4 as a whole. Also, those two shows are important as it includes characters that appeared in SMG4, either as a mainstay in the main cast (Meggy Spletzer and Tari) or a recurring character (Belle Fontiere).

Lastly, should the deletion of SMG4 became inevitable, you would have done yourself a complete disservice to its fanbase by removing the very page that connects Meta Runner and Sunset Paradise. After all, these three series are connected to one another in more ways than one!

I hope this would appeal to you and prevent this page from deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OverDriver05 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  11:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment The article has two non-YouTube sources, both to Kotaku Australia. One of them is just a passing mention, but the other is lengthy and detailed. While it does seem to have been adapted from an interview, the author includes some of their own analysis as well. Is this enough to pass WP:GNG? I don't know. If the article is kept, though, nearly everything except for the lead needs to be deleted, as the rest of it is pure fancruft. Mlb96 (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've taken it upon myself to delete most of the fancruft from the article. This meant deleting the description of every story arc and also deleting the absurdly large list of characters which took up well over half the article. Mlb96 (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done some more digging and couldn't find any sources except for that single Kotaku Australia article. Given that that article was based on an interview, there is no other coverage of this series, and there has been some recent discussion about whether Kotaku should continue to be considered reliable, I'm going to vote delete. Mlb96 (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 00:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - it appears to fail the WP:GNG, and nothing in the article creator's defense of the article is remotely tied to a valid keep response in the terms of Wikipedia policy or guideline. Sergecross73   msg me  02:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I think that from the original creator's response, they were arguing something along the lines of a WP:SPLIT. What they failed to realize though is that it generally only applies to articles which are of a large size because of its notability through multiple reliable sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete A single reasonable source (Kotaku) isn't sufficient to establish general notability. The rest of the sources are primary or only mention it in passing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:14, 24 November 2021 (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.