Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadazzle (2nd nomination)


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 00:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Shadazzle
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Almost a year has passed since the previous no-consensus AfD, but the article has not improved, so the previous rationale still holds: "Shadazzle is a webseries, an apparently 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." Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, nice discussion in sources about this comedy. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, Excluding reviews, I see four secondary sources here, one of which is from the world's largest broadcaster. I also think it's worth mentioning that, although some of the sources are local, they span several different localities. Definitely passes WP:GNG. &mdash; Fugabutacus 11:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The argument about "the world's largest broadcaster" was also brought forward at the previous AfD. I don't think that Radio Sheffield fits that description, it's just a small local part of the BBC. All coverage is minor and very local. To paraphrase: definitely misses GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I suppose that's a fair point. However, I would stress that GNG makes absolutely no mention of locality. It is just a guideline, of course, and it's down to the community to decide, but if you go through each point of GNG one-by-one, this article checks them all off without a doubt. &mdash; Fugabutacus 13:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability is visible, if we don't consider electronic media a reliable source, we have to delete hundreds of such articles.Justice007 (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you please clarify what you mean with "electronic media" here? I don't know whether any hard figures are available about this, but my personal guess would be that at least 80% of all reliable sources used on WP are "electronic media"... The question here is not whether the sources are electronic or not, but whether they are of sufficient importance and depth to establish notability. --Randykitty (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well Randykitty, I meant here BBC. BBC Radio Sheffield, you said that is a local and on the same place you are accepting it is a part of the BBC, whether it is a part or a branch of "the world's largest broadcaster"  is recognised as same body of an organisation. Other sources as Tubefilter and WebVee Guide both have an editorial staff. If you had the concerns about reliability of the sources, you should have asked at Reliable sources/Noticeboard before proposing for deletion second time. I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that, I was confused because radio is not usually taken as an "electronic" source. The question here is whether the coverage is sufficient to establish notability. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG with reliable sources found online WP:RS. --DoctorBob3 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you mind expanding on what online RS meet GNG? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The article has undergone some major surgery, gaining and losing large chunks of data - in particular the episode guide and the information about the soundtrack. While that does not directly affect notability, it does seem that the article now contains less information than it once did. If the article is kept, shouldn't that information be added back in? Other series (TV mainly in the US) have lists of characters, lists of episodes, etc. LaMona (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * All the articles on the Wikipedia all the time can be expanded and improved citing reliable sources, every passage of the article needs source, if not, can be challenged by any editor, it is more better content with source than unsourced. Justice007 (talk) 07:03, 26 September 2014 (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.