Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extra Credits (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Credits[edit]

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

Fails WP:N Soxwon (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - A video series, sounds notable, until you find out it is a video series on YouTube. No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG.~~ --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Weak~~ Keep - Never mind, I just noticed this was a 2nd nomination, and I read the previous nomination, and agreed with its consensus, can you or another bold contributor please state why this fails WP:N? Thanks! --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The show started as a YouTube series, however it has since been published by two large sites, the current(Penny Arcade) had a viewership of 3.5 million in 2010. The show is also notable for its organization of a boycott of the Electronic Entertainment Expo and its fundraising project's legal disputes. Although The current article does focus on descriptions of the show's episodes to much.--Blood sliver (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So we should tag it with {{cleanup AfD}} for more information besides plot summary? Or is there another maintenance tag that well fits it? --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 22:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems like a good move, and I cant think of any template that would work better.--Blood sliver (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The show is popular on the internet and now that its a partner of ScrewAttack, there's a broader coverage to the series. GamerPro64 04:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 09:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Other than some dubious sources such as non-notable blogs and "articles" that just redirect to Examiner pages (a site that's on Wikipedia's blacklist), I believe that this is a notable site, but I'll go through all of the sources first.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I've gone through and cleaned up the obviously unusable links, which were predominantly blogs and a youtube video by people who wouldn't be considered notable and/or an absolute authority (the type that scholars quote in books and articles). There was some pretty big abuse of WP:RS going on in the article, such as links to TV tropes and such. I do believe that it was all in good faith, but I think that the article should probably be monitored to keep people from adding non-reliable sources to the article. There's more primary sources on the article than I'd like, which makes me wish we had a separate reference tag for primary sources. (It'd make it easier to clean up after!) In any case, the articles that remain show that the series does have notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:26, 15 March 2012 (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.