Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suburbs (web series) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Consensus has changed. It appears the that passage of time has clarified the subject lacks notability for a standalone article. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Suburbs (web series)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Previous deletion proposal ended in keep based on a single mention in a local/regional newspaper, with the hope that more sources could be found. More sources haven't been found. I looked around. There's basically this Wikipedia article, and a bunch of self-published websites and blogs. Fails to meet the WP:GNG because there is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources that could WP:verify notability. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Unremarkable web series, that the only coverage available is a single mention in a purely regional publication. Purely local coverage is almost never considered valid to establish notability, and there is nothing else out there that talks about this.  Even if the single article was a reliable source, this article still falls short of the multiple reliable sources needed to establish some sort of notability.  Its actually kind of embarassing that this article was kept the first time, since keeping an article without valid sources with the argument that there might be more sources appearing in the future goes against standard Wikipedia practice.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: The find sources created by the AFD template is not always the best at giving results... and the web series has not gone completely without coverage since the keep of 2008. For example, using other parameters I found the series spoken of in detail in an article at Film Threat, and another at Avril. And behind a paywall we have The Journal News.  Not exactly what might have been hoped for in the last 4 years... but more-than-one becomes the "multiple" sources requested by User:Rorshacma up above. The fat lady has not yet sung.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - The one hidden behind a paywall, is actually already linked to in the article, and while that particular link is dead, looking around on the site it used to be hosted on (the author of the article's page, who keeps an archive of all her work), I found a non-paywalled version of the article here. As you can see The Journal News is a purely local newspaper, covering "the lower Hudson", and is, in fact, the one piece of coverage in a local paper alluded to in the original AFD, and the above comments from myself and nominator.  The Avril link is just a forum post, and is thus not a valid source.  And not only that, the forum post itself is just a copy/paste of the article from The Journal News.  That leaves only the Film Threat article, which, alone, as I said, is not the multiple sources required.  Also, I find it kind of amusing that the only reason that article was written, according to the lead, was because someone tried emailing the site to try to get support for the series during the previous AFD here.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, "amusing" or not, the anticipated coverage resulting in a keep 4 years ago were not forthcoming. If there were an article on the series creator, I might have suggested a merge and redirect.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 17:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 23:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Trivial mentions aren't enough. Does not meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:22, 7 October 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.