Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SUPERMODELME.tv


 * 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. JForget 14:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SUPERMODELME.tv

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This looks like an attempt at promotion - but I really can't verify much from reliable sources.

It seems to be a webcast beauty contest, with plenty of on-line attention, but I can't find any sources outside the blogosphere. I'm happy to speedily withdraw this if someone can verify its significance. Scott Mac (Doc) 11:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Per, , , and  . Joe Chill (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to Delete: Per nom. Joe Chill (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One is a bog and one is a press release. The others might be enough though.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable to me, even if the article is poorly written and I'd rather gouge my eyes out with jagged stones than watch an episode of this programme. --Dweller (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking if it "seems" notable, I'm asking can we verify any importance beyond assertion, blogland and press release.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasn't clear, it seems notable based on the RS presented. --Dweller (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you be precise? Which reliable citation evidences the importance of this? It exists, that's all I think we've verified here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see at least three reliable sources - asia one, the guardian and jakarta post. There are probably lots more in the countless G-hits, but three is certainly sufficient, particularly as they are so very non-trivial. --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The TV shows face book page; the tv shows twitter page. The tv shows friendster page (i thought friendster was defunct). The home page for the studio that produced the tv show. This sort of defines unreliably sourced and non-independent. Embarrassing piece of garbage as it astands. Clear delete, should be speedy.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotional spam for a non-notable tv show. The article currently lists four sources.
 * Did you see the sources presented above? --Dweller (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only reliable sources presented on tihs page serve to confirm only that the show exists. reiterate delete for this spamotional piece.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 *  Strong keep (changed to keep per Joe Chill) Guardian.co.uk: :"It was the summer launch of Supermodelme.tv that gave Asian models a boost. The show, which appeared online in June, follows 10 aspiring models from Singapore, Malaysia, Korea, Thailand, the Philippines and India as they compete for a prize of $10,000 and the chance of fame. Karen Seah, of Singapore-based media group Refinery Media, came up with the idea after witnessing "a growing market for Japanese and Chinese models" :"Elimination Shelimination at `SUPERMODELME.tv'" Jakarta Post, full article on SUPERMODELME. :The Guardian newspaper has a full paragraph on this site, and the Jakarta Post, the largest English language newspaper in Indonesia, devotes a full article. And yet this is not enough for volunteer editors, they second guess these world renowned and known papers. Notability policy states, "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail" (refactored) >> How many reliable sources is enough for some editors? Ikip 19:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My problem is that two sources isn't enough for me. Now, my opinion is keep. Joe Chill (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Joe Chill, I appreciate how you are torn with this. I often agree with your delete/keep decisions. I watch AFDs often and I am usually soft and not bold enough to say "delete" as you are. Unfortunately the definition of what "Significant coverage" is is not specific, and unequally applied. Maybe we can merge or redirect this article until there are more significant sources? Ikip  19:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, two sources isn't enough for me. We have three sources which are Asia One, Jakarta Post, and The Guardian. Joe Chill (talk) 20:03, 21 December 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.