Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stu Osborn Show (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. With due regards to Oakshade's keep !vote, the discussion has tended towards delete (I say "tended", taking into account power-enwiki's comments on the Rename option). While I am deleting this article, my personal bent is that if sources discussing the subject significantly can be found, I would be keen to undelete this article. Lourdes 16:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Osborn Show

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Minor viral ad with not enough lasting impact to require its own article. I wasn't able to find any sources other than those linked in the article, and I checked Google, GNews, GBooks, and GScholar. I also checked Highbeam and Newspapers.com (on a lark; I know it's mostly archival) and found nothing. Of the sources in the article, the first one is paywalled so I can't access it. The second is a name-drop only, and does not discuss the ad. The third confirms it won a Webby, but there's no inherent notability to winning a Webby. Arguably, awards grant notability because reliable sources discuss works which earn notable awards. But if there's no independent coverage of something as an award-winner, it's hard to argue that the award lends much to notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lean to Keep - My position hasn't changed since the last AfD. As major talent put on this project (Christopher Guest, Fred Willard, Michael Hitchcock) it's hard to imagine this not being considered notable, which is why I created it. The Webby Award is a strong indication of notability. The Shoot reference is substantial despite now being behind a paywall. It's still surprising I've not found much more than the Shoot reference either. But like with the last AfD, common sense makes sense. --Oakshade (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. If there was media coverage because those people participated in it, then that would be indicative of notability. But their participation alone does not make this notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 3 refs:1st paywalled, 2nd in passing, 3rd now a deadlink. No independent sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, per WP:N and WP:NEXIST, sources don't have to be available in the current state of the article. "No independent sources" is simply not accurate. --Oakshade (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any available at all, as far as I could tell. As noted in my nomination, I did a fairly thorough WP:BEFORE check and found nothing aside from the one paywalled source already linked in the article. From WP:NEXIST: "once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are specified sources., not unspecified. And I just fixed the 3rd one anyway. --Oakshade (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've fixed it, it's clear that the content didn't actually win the award in that category in 2008. "COCA COLA HAPPINESS FACTORY II - THE VIRTUAL PREMIERE" was the 2008 Branded Content winner. The Stu Osborn show is listed in the "view all Webby honorees" link at the bottom of that category with a number of other pieces of content. Being an "honoree" rather than a winner contributes nothing to notability, and so again we are left with the single source already linked in the article, and a single source is just not enough to consider something notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that too. Still a Webby Award honoree is an indication of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to what sources? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the references (and the Webby Award, which I can't verify at [1]) don't suggest this is a notable ad campaign, or that it was a popular "viral video". However, Microsoft's marketing campaigns in general is almost certainly a notable topic. If such an article existed, this could be merged there. I note that the Bill Gates/Jerry Seinfeld ad campaign has plenty of coverage and is mentioned briefly on Gates' article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually looked for such an article when I first came upon this one, with the hope of merging this one there, but there isn't one. I wouldn't object to a merge & redirect if that article gets made, but I'll be honest in saying I don't have any interest in making it myself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that having such an article is a good idea (Apple Inc. advertising is mediocre; Reebok advertising campaigns is terrible). If people want the article I can create/expand it; closing this as Rename is probably the easiest option if that's the consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:35, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – while the Webby award is a suitable claim of notability per WP:NWEB, I can't find any independent sources to verify this claim. And for some reason I can't even find mention of this show on the Webby website, so the information fails WP:V. Brad v 21:38, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear (mainly for others who look at this discussion), per the commentary under Smallbones's comment above, the content did not even win the Webby. It was listed as a "Webby honoree" for the category - basically an honorable mention, with about a dozen other pieces of content. So its claim to notability is even weaker than it first appears. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2018 (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.