Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacked (TV film)


 * 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. No one except the nominator advocates for the deletion of the article. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 00:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Stacked (TV film)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NFILM. The fact that it exists is not a valid reason for inclusion. PROD was declined by author.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If the claim it won a contest to be screened is true, then some notability could be established.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete keep - I posted the original prod, saying "WP:NOTABILITY; the only thing beyond database listings I find for this (searching for Stacked Bazeley, being the name of the first listed actor at IMDB) is the site of the writer's company, which claims it won a contest to see air." Since then, another editor has found this paywalled article, which may contribute to notability (I've not paid for the paywall), but even then it's a single article. It doesn't look like this contest qualifies for the "major award" descriptor at WP:NFILM, and so doesn't generate sufficient notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC) Switched to the keep column later, per discussion below. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: How weird: if I Google on stacked "channel 4" 2008 I get the full text without paying for it, but if I save the URL, as above, it hits the paywall. (Add "Eureka" to the search and it comes out as first hit.) Pam  D  00:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And if I try to paste the Google link to the article here, I get the edit filter.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  00:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips. Having now seen the article, it's one sentence written by the paper, then Stacked's writer/directors answer to a questionaire, and the show's pitch. So it gains a little notability from place of publication, but I can't say that Broadcast showed that it was worth putting effort into. I maintain my "weak delete" stance. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 21:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep not because it exists, but because it received significant coverage. I just added three sources I readily found, I suspect there are more.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there an Article Deletion Squad canvass board where I can canvass deletionists?  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Eagles it is called "Articles for Deletion"! Now seriously, why not respond to my point about the three additional sources I found, they seemed to be significant to me and were not at your disposal when you made the nomination.  This AfD went a full 7 days without drawing strong support and some questioning whether it might be notable, which is why I investigated it.--Milowent • hasspoken  19:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a game, and especially not a zero-sum game - if "the inclusionists win" that does not mean "the deletionists lose" - it means we have a worthy article in our encyclopedia. Which is the goal of all of us. Right? Sometimes I think some people forget that. Thanks again, Milowent, for finding good sources. --GRuban (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the term canvass.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The first source is very good. The second source  is a blog post and may or may not be a sufficiently reliable source. The third source  I am unsure about, as I do not believe it is independent of the subject.  Eagles   24/7   (C)  19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The "blog post" is from a newspaper's blog, and those are generally accorded the same reliable source value as the paper itself - although I'm not familiar with this particular paper (a free daily?!?), but it seems to be of enough circulation to indicate that it can suggest significance. With others found, I'm sliding my stance to a weak keep. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Re ScottishScreens cite -- "I do not believe it is independent of the subject" - how so? It appears to be official publication of the scottish film industry organisation, who apparently felt it appropriate to devote a page of coverage to the project.--Milowent • hasspoken  22:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Coverage found proves notability.  D r e a m Focus  08:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Milowent's good work. --GRuban (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2012 (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.