Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stu Osborn Show

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. General consensus that just enough sources exist to meet notability requirements. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Osborn Show

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

This is a funny video, and there was apparently additional online content that tied in with it, but it doesn't seem to have any real notability - seemingly no press other than two paragraphs in an article in the trade industry Shoot. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to Keep - Given the major talent in this project (Christopher Guest, Fred Willard, Michael Hitchcock), it's hard to imagine this not being considered notable, which is why I created it. Yes, I've surprisingly not found much more than the Shoot reference, but it is a good time to employ common sense. --Oakshade (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, according to Advertising Age, it did win a Webby Award. [1]--Oakshade (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 14:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as although it's not surprising there was not better coverage, the current may be enough to simply keep. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There may not be an overabundance of sources, but what appears to exist seems to probably be enough to maintain the article. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:00, 2 October 2015 (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.