Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign Body (internet 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 keep. However, merge discussions can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Body (internet series)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not able to verify notability of this webseries in reliable sources. Not much to be found beyond the pre-launch hype as shown in the references listed with the article. Utterman (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I just deprodded this, I guess you didn't choose to actually look? There are multiple sources out there showing this was a notable webseries, and I don't think there are very many notable webseries. Even the "pre launch hype" if you want to call it that included lengthy articles in many major publications (LA Times article, Times of India, Chicago Tribune, etc.)[1][2][3][4][5]--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even by TV Guide standards these do not appear to be "lengthy articles". They're pre-release promotion, as the nom says. I don't think a case has been made for notability here. / edg ☺ ☭ 06:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or better yet Merge into an article on the novel that it was made to promote, though that doesn't seem to exist yet. Verifiability and basic notability don't appear to be in question. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The sources already in the article plus the ones listed by Milowent would appear to just about take this over the boundary required by WP:GNG. Could be merged to an article on the novel at some time in the future, but certainly don't delete. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2011 (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.