Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Garbage Can Man Show


 * 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 speedy delete. Uncontroversially deleted via G5. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The Garbage Can Man Show

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. Beyond the bare existence of this web animation, there seems to be little or no coverage indicating any level of notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk) 08:28, 10 June 2017 - struck out comments from sock of article creator - GretLomborg (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC) (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2017 - struck out comments from sock of article creator - GretLomborg (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Can't find any RS and does not seem to meet WP:GNG - GretLomborg (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Appears to have some sources on the web. Maybe its just too soon for this article? User:71.88.55.177
 * Comment Are any of the sources independent of the show's creator, or did he just go around creating entries for his show himself? For instance, it looks like anyone might be able to submit their show to Amazon here - GretLomborg (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Comment Yeah GretLomborg, I'm not sure. What would that mean if he did? User:71.88.55.177
 * At the risk of stealing someone else's thunder, it would mean that the sources aren't independent of the subject of the article, which is the exact opposite of the kinds of sources an article needs to establish notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Clearly nn & cited to primary sources. Wikipedia has an article on the creator (who may or may not be notable himself), and it definitely does not need two articles on these closely related topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The creator's Wikipedia bio page has recently been edited to clarify that he's merely *piched* his shows to Amazon, etc, so I'm thinking the Amazon link implies nothing about the notability of the show. I also highly suspect that those edits were made by a socketpuppet of the account that created both Preston Hazard and The Garbage Can Man Show. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Per my above comments, this article appears to be part of a self-promotion campaign for a non-notable work. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2017 (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.