Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spriggs


 * 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  Nakon  02:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Spriggs

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about a web series that does not meet notability. The only references provided in the article are to their own web sites, and there does not appear to be any reliable sources covering the series. PROD was removed without any comments or improvement to the article so taking it to AFD. Whpq (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. &mdash; from Notability. That means that just because it doesn't have multiple, reliable sources doesn't make it non-notable. So keep, it is notable enough for inclusion IMO-- Phoenix -  wiki  06:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - So what reliable sources are you using to presume notability? Using your logic, everything is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just said there are no reliable references to prove it's notability, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. In my opinion it is notable, and that's all that matters, if most others agree with me it can be kept regardless of what policy says (In fact, policy is worded in a way that lets consensus overule it), unless it's a copyright violation or a BLP violation or something.
 * Reply' What is your basis for your opinion for notability?  You haven't explained other than to say, you think so.  Notability can be established in a variety of ways, but you have offered none. -- Whpq (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say everything is notable though, and I like to examine each case individually and decide myself whether it's notable; you said that by my logic everything is notable; that's a Straw man &mdash; a fallacy of relevance used to make your side of the discussion look more appealing, though it bears no weight at all.-- Phoenix -  wiki  14:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply Fair enough, AFD discussion isn't an exercise in formal logic. -- Whpq (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per above.--Berig (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. Needs coverage. -- Swerdnaneb 21:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:N. (Emperor (talk) 02:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Delete per WP:NOT, we are not a directory. This is not an encyclopedic article, but a directory entry. Hiding T 00:22, 22 April 2008 (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.