Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadazzle


 * 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   no consensus. There is no clear consensus here - the value of the sources is the main sticking point here, with one side saying they are sufficient, the other side disagreeing. As it's been relisted 3 times, I am closing it as no consensus, as none has been reached!  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 01:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Shadazzle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Shadazzle is a webseries, an apparently a nicely-produced amateur production. No indication that this has generated any coverage in reliable sources, however. The only two sources listed in the article (besides their own website) are from two very local publications of unclear status. A Google search mainly shows links related to a cleaning product of the same name. Fails WP:WEB, WP:FILM, and WP:GNG, hence: Delete. See also the related AfD for the shows creator, Brett Barnett. Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  hmssolent \You rang? ship's log 14:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  hmssolent \You rang? ship's log 14:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  hmssolent \You rang? ship's log 14:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Not entirely sure what is meant by unclear status, but the two references in question are articles from independent publications with a combined circulation of over 50,000, for which the series is the sole subject of the article. This would appear to satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I have also added a third source, a radio production from the BBC, which should certainly satisfy the criteria for a reliable source; the producer is a globally recognised and respected company, and the series in question was discussed in depth on air. The dominant Google Search results appear to be for the series, rather than the cleaning product (the top-ranking result is the series' homepage; the cleaning product's homepage does not surface until the bottom of the results page). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.240.85 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)  — 145.255.240.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. It arguably squeaks by the WP:GNG with the addition of the later sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Which are a reference to Flicker and a local BBC station (BBC Sheffield). --Randykitty (talk) 11:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The only independent coverage I can find is of the racehorse of the same name. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- If this had been on TV, I would not object, but I do not think we can have pages on any am-dram that someone fil,s and pus on the web! Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, nice amount of secondary source coverage, nice potential here. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep I agree with Cirt (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC). It on the third series, looks as though there is enough invested in it to become very popular. scope_creep talk 16:58, 06 October 2013  (UTC)
 * Comment Unfortunately, neither of you explains which are those nice secondary sources (the only ones in the article are quite local) and where that nice potential comes from. --Randykitty (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't see how location alters the definition of "secondary source." A secondary source is "a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere," and that definition does not change based on geographic factors. Wikipedia's guidelines are quite clear that the requirement for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This article cites several such sources. If this article fails WP:GNG, then perhaps an alteration to the guidelines should be considered to avoid future situations? 145.255.240.85 (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Following your reasoning, a subject discussed in depth in two magazines that have a circulation of 50 each would be notable... --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. But it's not my reasoning, it's Wikipedia's reasoning, and it's outlined quite clearly.145.255.240.85 (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * By those criteria, then, I am notable as I had three paragraphs about me in a computer magazine in the 1980s, a CD got about the same in a Dutch prog rock magazine about ten years ago, and I've done a few interviews on local FM radio. Can you create an article about me, please? I promise not to have a conflict of interest. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha! I get that it's a fine line and I do understand why people may consider this article not notable (although I disagree), but I stand by the fact that, based on the Wikipedia guidelines, it does qualify, so I again suggest that the guidelines should be altered accordingly. I've also been doing a little research (for lack of a better word) and found quite a few articles that pale in comparison to this article. For example, Chronicles Of Syntax has 18 references, all but one of which are primary sources. Compare that to the coverage the four secondary sources already cited in this article provide. I think the main problem with this article is the lack of citations for small details, something which I'm slowly working to improve by adding more primary sources to verify the information. Of course, I'm also looking to add more secondary sources where possible. It would be a shame to see the article vanish rather than expand. -- 145.255.240.85 (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (aka WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) is not the strongest of arguments to use here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As a stopgap, if you believe it's possible to find better offline sources, you can always ask for it to be userfied for you. I've got a few article parked in userspace (eg: User:Ritchie333/England (band)) for this very reason. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 12:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete (with regret). It does sound like a well produced show that's got a devoted following, and probably deserves to be more notable than it actually is. That said, I have tried really hard to look for sources, but I can't find anything that doesn't suggest this is simply World famous in Poland Sheffield. The guideline that fits this best is WP:TVSHOW - a local television show isn't necessarily non-notable (the London-only "Today" is highly notable for giving the Sex Pistols their break) but if it doesn't gain national attention it probably isn't worth much. If it gets picked up and repeated by BBC Three, we'll look into creating an article then. Ritchie333  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F;">(cont)   16:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment, Ritchie333 is about right here, unfortunately. Also their YouTube views are quite low, less than 200 views per episode is common, with recent ones not even reaching 50 views.  Its extremely unlikely for a webseries to be notable at that level.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  03:34, 25 October 2013 (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.