Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The arrivals 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   delete. MuZemike 02:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The arrivals series

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable collection of video shorts. No in-article reliable sources to judge notability, and search results turn up only blog entries. Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 10:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. &mdash; RHaworth 13:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Here is the evidence of notability. Google Insight for search proves that "The arrivals" reaches to Breakout breakout point with several search key terms: --115.186.27.122 (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Very sorry, but google analytics aren't considered a "reliable source." Any marketing company can initiate a marketing surge on search engines, which is why reliable sources are explained here: WP:RS. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing here. The link provided above (editor, please sign your posts) does not establish anything. Drmies (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. These videos are free and intended to spread knowledge, just like wikipedia, so these can not be considered as advertisement. --115.186.27.122 (talk) 09:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all ads are intended to bring immediate financial gain. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And the article wasn't nominated for being spam, it was nominated for not yet being notable. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 08:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep.
 * Various References added.
 * All Videos links placed.
 * Necessary Content description added.
 * In Article references inserted.
 * ALI ASSAD (talk) 09:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. If it became notable, it could be recreated, but most of the current content would still need to be pruned as advertising material.
 * Many of the incoming links need to be killed regardless of whether it's notable. May I suggest the article creator remove those first, as it's easier for him to revert his own changes. I found this AfD because of the clearly inappropriate link from conspiracy theory.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The series is about conspiracy theories and cites numerous references. May I suggest the deletion suggester check these first, as it's easier for him to understand if its appropriate or not.ALI ASSAD (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would have to be particularly notable in order for it to be appropriate as a #See also. As I question its notability, I can assert that it is not particularly notable with much fear of dispute.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply Dispute = No in #See also link Removal.


 * But Dispute yes here is dear brother, You can never compare and then assertively decide 2 things to be non-related when you haven't even checked one's contents. ALI ASSAD (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article is advertisement for non-notable You-Tube videos. "See Also" links to this are being spammed into other non-related articles (ie, further evidence of advertisement-quality of article.) J. Van Meter (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment.
 * There are many many articles about commercial films, why are they not considered as advertisements and non-profitable You-Tube videos are ?
 * Secondly if you don't even know about the contents of the videos then how are you deciding that they are non-related ? ALI ASSAD (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There are many commercial films whose articles have been deleted or rejected for not being notable.
 * There seem to be no references to this video, other than in blogs and in Wikipedia echos. Notability requires external, reliable sources.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply. A John Tuturro comedy about a 19th century theater troupe in New York City has, in spite of your assumptions about the film's title, absolutely nothing to do with an antichrist or alien invasions. (Opinions on Christopher Walken not withstanding.) I stand by my assertion. J. Van Meter (talk) 19:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply. OK Sorry! I assumed what the movies title states just like you are assuming a lot of anti-article things without watching the videos, and now I stand by my assertion that your and mine reactions are not different at all brother.ALI ASSAD (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_arrivals_series ALI ASSAD (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Should we take this discussion to the articles discussion page ???
 * Why? It goes to the question of whether there should be an article, not as to what should be in the article.  Questions as to the latter should be on the talk page.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2009 (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.