Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unexplained: Witches, Werewolves & Vampires


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 17:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The Unexplained: Witches, Werewolves & Vampires

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable TV content. No evidence of in-depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I performed a search and found only one source that could remotely be considered a reliable source by any means, a short Rovi review that was posted on the NYT listing for the show. I did re-write the article to be a little more neutral in case more sources are found, but overall this appears to be your standard TV special that aired to little to no fanfare in any major sources and was quickly and quietly forgotten by most. I'm aware that this was released before releasing/adding news to the Internet became a big thing, but there aren't many non-reliable mentions of this in anything other than merchant or junk/torrent sites so I don't see where it really got a big fan following or much notice in general.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:17, 5 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 12 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete there are two refs, but no in depth coverage of the actual movie and many of the facts in the article are entirely unsupported. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: Stuartyeates is also the nominator. Jenks24 (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ack, my mistake. I was trawlling through the old afds and contributing and didn't notice I'd nominated this one. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:46, 27 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.