Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/13 Witches

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. J04n(talk page) 01:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

13 Witches[edit]

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

As with the prod, "spam from Voidz. non notable web series, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. mix of non mentions, passing mentions, pr and non reliable sources" and prod2, This is just WP:TOOSOON for this to have an article. The mention in the NYT is a brief mention and none of the other sources are really the type that are usable as RS. None of the awards seem to be of the type that would extend notability either. Userfication is an option if anyone wants to do it, but I think that this is just too soon for an article." [1]. Prod removed without improvement. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar · · 12:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 12:03, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the second PRODer. I really can't add much more to this than I did with the case I made for the PROD. All I can say about the PROD rationale is that popularity does not equate to notability. It makes it more likely it'd gain in-depth coverage, but it doesn't guarantee notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a millimeter away from being speedy deletable as non-notable web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of any coverage from reliable sources. There do seem to be a lot of search results about this topic, though, so I would not have problem with recreating the article if proper coverage emerges. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This piece from The New York Times mentioning 13 Witches is indicative of possible future coverage, but here, its mention there is analogous with WP:GNG's "significant coverage" trivial example of the band Three Blind Mice. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as "too soon." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:20, 7 May 2013 (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.