Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Behind the Music that Sucks

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 keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Behind the Music that Sucks

Poorly-sourced article about a very non-notable Internet series. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weakest possible keep.~~ There is some notability indicated by Google News stories [1]. But the one I watched wasn't funny. So I'm okay with it being deleted... ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Heavy.com. This seems like the best option to include appropriately this marginally notable thing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Heavy.com. Perhaps once more citable info becomes available it can be broken back out to its own article. SpikeJones (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Redirect~~ added sources demonstrate notability for the web show itself beyond just the web site and merge per SpikeJones. JJL (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is not nearly noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia article, even one as inclusive as Wikipedia. -- Kjkolb (talk) 08:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The series is notable and has received significant coverage in plenty of secondary reliable sources (I have added a few to the article). TheLeft orium 17:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Kjkolb.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 02:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, absolutely. Everybody could learn from this discussion. Few references, this is an old recipe for being nominated for AfD . I did personally search for some sources, but they are not immediately visible, for instance my Google news search is empty, I could be inclined to vote delete. Then I check the recently added refs by TheLeft orium (what a ridiculously long script you have here), and then, a wonderful rack of WP:RS turns up. Ladies and gentlemen, all it takes is hard work, much harder than opting for the easy delete option. Good job, Leftorium, respect. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Power.corrupts. TheLeftorium has done an excellent job of sourcing and otherwise rescuing this article. ~ mazca ^talk 22:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.