Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Break a Leg (sitcom)

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. John254 01:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Break a Leg (sitcom)[edit]

Very few articles link to this one.
Adheres to WP:DEL#REASON - Advertising
Fails WP:WEB - Notability, 1, 2, and 3 (to an extent).
Most sources are either broken or subscription based.
Google test shows under 500 unique results.
Seems to almost fit into WP:BIO as the creator of the article (Jargonovsky) 'seems' to match the creators in the series (Yuri Baranovsky and Vlad Baranovsky). Mkdw ^talk 08:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup. Coverage in Wall Street Journal, Huffington Times, LA Times. I see no evidence this is WP:COI as the page creator's name does not resemble except faintly the name of the person who created the show. Redfarmer (talk) 08:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Then I find it a very unusual coincidence that the creator of the article, User:Jargonovsky (possibly a combination of Jargon and Novsky) and the creators of the series, Yuri Baranovsky and Vlad Baranovsky (whom are also the directors) last names end in 'novsky'. As for the online Wall Street Journal review, thousands of art content are reviewed by that newspaper including features about high school students doing neat things in the community, etc. etc. but that does not mean they meet any special notability. Also the LA Times is a subscription site which makes its reference void as per Wikipedia policy. I should also note that the 'Huffing Post' link does not work. Mkdw^talk 09:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Coincidences happen. It's very common in Russian surnames. At this point it's only possible WP:COI. Redfarmer (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Very well discrediting the fact that User:Jargonovsky is a single purpose editor on Wikipedia that has only made edits to the article Break a Leg (sitcom) and shares the last 6 letters in sequence to the creators of the series on the evidence that many Russians have last names that end in Novsky, come to Wikipedia to edit articles by people of the same last name or endings, the sources do not provide enough support as only one of them remains creditable of which alone would not make the series satisfy the WP:WEB as it must have more than one source. Also a google test (though not officially creditable either) shows fairly low results. Mkdw ^talk 09:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More coverage [1] here, including an article in Forbes. Redfarmer (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to know if the article was of some substance or simply a reference as the page is now defunt like most of its sources, "Something's gone awry! The page you requested could not be found". Mkdw ^talk 09:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in multiple reliable sources. Catchpole (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep I have added fact templates to help with teh afd process, but it does seem to be verifiable. Fosnez (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Most TV shows tend to be notable anyway and this one seems to be no exception. It is a bit thin on reliable sources, but a couple have been shown to exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, revisitable in the future. While it's a web show with limited coverage, the one bit of coverage referenced in the article is from the Wall Street Journal. For the Journal to cover a web show, it's not your run of the mill show. If it peters out and never makes it to episode five, it may be time to rethink it, I think it can stay for now. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2008 (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.