Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spellfury


 * 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. SPAs and poor arguments aside, there does seem to be a genuine case for keeping, if a somewhat weak one. Shi meru  07:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Spellfury

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not appear to be notable. The listing at IMDB is probably self-created. This article has already been deleted once under A7. Eeekster (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Showzampa (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC) IMDB pages are implemented by people working at IMDB, the public can submit things at which IMDB will look it over and make sure it is legitimate before putting it up.Showzampa (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete, Show is Notable

This show is notable, Eekster mentions IMDB, but fails to mention the Wired.com article "7 webotainers worth watching", an "Ain't it cool news" review , that Spellfury is the HIGHEST RATED show on Visioweb.tv, that it's the second most watched webseries on the Koldcast.tv network. It has been featured on tubefilter.tv (A notable webseries reviewer ). The show has 6,304 subscribers on it's Youtube PARTNER account and was given a special showpage along side television shows. It seems Eekster hasn't read the whole wiki or hasn't heard of a site like wired.com or ain't it cool news. Please look at the references, please do more research on what a webseries is, check the wiki.Showzampa (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showzampa (talk • contribs) 22:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

From the looks of it on wikipedia the webseries is underrepresented. I don't believe Eeekster has the knowledge base to determine the difference between a notable webseries and an unnotable one.Showzampa (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

In doing research about other notable webseries' an article in Tubefilter (one of 2 notable websites that focus on webseries topics and shows to watch) combined with other legitimate sources proves notability of a webseries (Spellfury was featured on Tubefilter.tv)

From the "Legend of Neil" wiki history in regards to it's early "Articles for deletion":

The article has come a long way since earlier today, and the sources assert notability pretty clearly at this point. WP:WEB requires that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"; that is the case now. I agree that Tubefilter isn't the best source, but it seems to deal with such media, and the other refs look fine. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Showzampa (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's also look at probably THE most notable webseries on the internet "The Guild", if we look at the evolution of the wiki page: 18:14, 4 December 2007 "Created page with 'The Guild is an online sitcome about a group of six gamers, with webisodes 3-6 minutes long. It is broadcast on The Guild's personal website and [[Youtube]...')"


 * Spellfury is on Youtube ( On a partner account, shares ad revenue with Youtube, under the name: tbonepearson) and has been given it's own special showpage by Youtube so it's side by side with the traditional television shows, Spellfury has it's own personal site.

07:23, 7 December 2007 For the Guild: Article is expanded and references have been added (including IMDB link) to confirm notability.


 * Spellfury has an IMDB link.

There was NO "article for deletion" on the guild's early wiki pages, and all they had was an IMDB link, a youtube page and a website. So why is Spellfury being targeted for deletion by Eekster who hasn't explained himself or seem to be knowledgeable on this subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Showzampa (talk • contribs) 14:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Showzampa (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

added more links to the show on itunes, blip.tv and scififinal: Spellfury can also be watched on itunes on Blip.tv and the webseries directory Scifinal Showzampa (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Added "The Spellfury series has been watched 471,927 times on Youtube.[4]" to Spellfury page to show notability Showzampa (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Spellfury is Notable Please look at the webseries list of notable webseries' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Web_television_series and look at the definition of a webseries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_series and then look at the references and mentions in the Spellfury wiki and you will see the webseries is notable. Showzampa (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:WEB. IMDB does not make it notable. Most references are links to IMDB or other sites that the series can be downloaded from. No 3rd party review or critique of the series.  Gtstricky Talk or C 13:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

*Don't Delete, Show is Notable Fine Gtstricky, forget IMDB, are you saying wired.com, Ain't It Cool News and tubefilter aren't reliable sources? They're 3rd party reviews, have you not read the whole spellfury wiki? Important Youtube has given Spellfury it's own special showpage at[], these can't be created by the public, "the guild" has also been given this honor, but notable webseries like "legend of neil" and "riese the series" don't have them. It allows The guild and Spellfury to come up in the listings of traditional television shows, Youtube has deemed Spellfury notable because of the strong viewership of the series and fanbase. Remember we're discussing whether or not Spellfury is a notable "webseries", not a tv show. Showzampa (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * please only !vote once per AFD. The wired.com article works. tubefilter and ain't it cool news will review anything if you email them and ask them.  Gtstricky Talk or C 15:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Thank You Gstricky, Thank Goodness someone around here has heard of Wired.com, they're an extremely reputable site. My only trouble is with your statement "tubefilter and Ain't It Cool News will review anything if you email them and ask them" you don't back that up with any facts or even an explanation.

I don't see that information on the wiki pages for those sites, I dare you to try and put that fact on their pages :) From my experience I would TOTALLY disagree with you, I've been reading those 2 "notable" and reputable websites for years.  the only way anyone will get published on those sites is if the editor deems you "notable". Many a webseries or individual would give they're eyeteeth for a review on either of those sites. The web traffic from being mentioned on one of those sites is HIGHLY sought after and valuable. Showzampa (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The Wired article and Ain't It Cool News article mention it sufficiently.  D r e a m Focus  18:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It could use work but the core article is useful and relevant.--Modelmotion (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * KeepLooks to be notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.117.172 (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC) — 65.94.117.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep There are all valid and convincing arguments in this discussion page allowing to re-confirm Spellfury is notable.Jorgepetru (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC) — Jorgepetru (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

To further prove notability I added better link to today's Newspaper article: Perth-based online show casts spell on viewers.


 * Weak keep - 225k hits make it notable. Unless I'm wrong... 23:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3h 1337 b0y (talk • contribs)
 * 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.