Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlvana (2nd nomination)

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. Michig (talk) 07:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Girlvana[edit]

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

A page on an unremarkable film series that does not list any sources; no significant RS coverage can be found.

The 2010 discussion closed as Keep due to the awards. The awards, however, do not overcome the lack of RS per WP:WHYN. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Our core content policy Verifiability requires that we base our articles on summarizing what reliable, third party (independent) sources say about a topic. Like the nominator, my search for such sources failed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete absence of GScholar and GBooks hits underscores the lack of significance of the claimed niche awards. This perpetually unsourced article has also never included any sources or references indicating that the claimed awards meet the NFILM standard of "a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". If they did, there wouldn't be a complete void of independent reliable sourcing for its winners. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't enough coverage in reliable third party sources to write an article per WP:WHYN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also a delete per WP:DEL7 as the "awards" are sourced to primary sources and there are no reliable sources where this info can be verified. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources added since nominated; award-winning. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added are directory listings and award material; these are not RS for the purpose of establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the sources listed now are still not actually convincing, what is then listed is also not convincing for its own convincing article; this is best mentioned elsewhere, not at its own article. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 01:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable series.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2016 (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.