Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Collectin


 * 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 merge to Alden_Ehrenreich. Randykitty (talk) 10:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Collectin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I had a good long scan of sources and a good think of whether to bring this article here or not, but I can't seem to find too much that puts this on the right side of notability. Use this case sensitive search so searches don't get piled up with a protein. Myname is not dave (talk/contribs) 19:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: No opinion on notability, but I did remove all of the merchant sources. You don't really need those to establish that something was released via VOD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's my rundown on the remaining sources:


 * Vanity Fair. This article initially seems like it's about Ehrenreich, but the article is about a show that they're putting on. I'd consider it to be usable for the most part, though.
 * NYT. The NYT is a RS, but this just reprints e-mail correspondence between two people involved in the production of one of the group's shows. I'd consider this to be a WP:PRIMARY source because there's really no commentary on the exchanges. So it'd be usable as a primary source, but it wouldn't give notability.
 * Huffington Post. This one is iffy. It's the HuffPo, which has always been highly contested on Wikipedia, but it looks to be one of their articles and not one of the blogs. At the same time, the word "Collectin" is never actually mentioned in the article. It might be usable, but it's certainly not the strongest source and not really the type you'd want to be the deciding factor between notable and non-notable.
 * DaMan. This is pretty much entirely about Ehrenreich. The Collectin is briefly mentioned, but isn't really given enough notice to where it'd be considered an in-depth RS. If the article was about the Collectin it'd probably be usable but this is pretty much a WP:TRIVIAL source given that it's really only briefly mentioned. It's also an interview, which is considered by many to be a primary source.
 * Interview. This is about the Collectin, but it's also an interview. The reason a lot of people contest interviews and call them primary sources is because so much of the article is just the person being interviewed and is presumed to be unedited, whereas an article written about an exchange with the other person would be. I don't entirely agree with this, but it does make it a weaker source than we'd need to really be able to firmly argue notability.


 * So far I'm leaning towards a merge and redirect to Alden Ehrenreich, given that his article is fairly short and could contain this information quite easily. I'll see what I can find, though, before making a final decision. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Alden_Ehrenreich. This actually didn't take long because a search made it fairly clear that what is currently on the article is really all that's out there. Merging this into Ehrenreich's article would be the best outcome here since the group is close to passing on its own, but isn't really enough to fully pass criteria. From what I can see, the group's main claim to fame is that Ehrenreich is one of its founding members and since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by Ehrenreich's independent notability, the merge/redirect is the best outcome. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll start merging the info. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect per Tokyogirl79's arguments and proactive edits. Theredproject (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2015 (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.