Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wrong Guys for the Job


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 01:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The Wrong Guys for the Job

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

spam from Voidz. non notable web series, awards are not major, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix of pr and non reliable sources. nothing independent or substantial. prod removed by new SPA without real improvement. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. article updated with more substantial references including reviews of series, interviews with creators, and articles written about the series from reliable sources. Series is notable in web series world and most of the references should now be independent and reliable 66.9.12.194 (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Good deal of secondary source coverage of this comedy series. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * DELETE WP:PROMO/WP:SPAM/WP:SOCK tainted article with possible WP:COI.  PeterWesco (talk) 02:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete brand-new web video show with only 4 episodes, no notability yet. Article is also created by a known spammer.  May be possible to re-create if it becomes notable later. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete At this time, I could not find RS covering this show. Transcendence (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice against another article on the same topic being allowed in after a review. I would be "on the fence" but I think this particular version is "tainted" by the very real possibility that this was not contributed in good faith.  I say this based on the primary editor's recent block for promotional editing and apparent sockpuppetry.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  03:00, 7 May 2013 (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.