Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Watch (TV series)


 * 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   Snow Keep. I'm slightly concenred over some of the recent rash of AFD nominations that has brought up. In any sense, this is a clear snow closure (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 01:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Watch (TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

NN Proposed tv series that apparently never aired, only garnered "newsy" coverage while under development and not WP:GNG in secondary sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Even if it remains forever stuck in development hell, the substantial media coverage it has already received, as seen in the article's references, makes it pass WP:GNG.  Sandstein   18:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Procedural Keep: I reviewed this AfD filed by the nom yesterday, and found a blizzard of high quality, substantive sources (including the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, Rolling Stone magazine, the Associated Press and Newsweek), demonstrating that the nom didn't make the slightest effort to source the article, as WP:BEFORE requires he do before filing an AfD. I checked his contribution history, and found to my shock that in the course of over five hundred edits he made over the last two days, he filed the astonishing number of 51 AfDs, some of them as little as three minutes apart.  This is absurd, and worth taking to AN/I, but in the meantime these AfDs ought to be pulled. As far as this one goes, notability is not temporary.  Something doesn't have to have ever gotten off the ground to meet the GNG, as this subject plainly does.   Ravenswing   18:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, good deal of source coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep & expand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futeb00l (talk • contribs) 22:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's enough coverage, and that's what matters. Being released is not an actual criteria in the WP:GNG. Sergecross73   msg me  15:50, 19 September 2014 (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.