Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pet Collective

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Spa votes traditionally get much less weight and no convincing rebuttle of the delete votes' assessment of the sources has emerged Spartaz Humbug! 16:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pet Collective[edit]

The Pet Collective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Of the 24 references in the article, 13 are from YouTube, two are primary sources, 1 is from the LAFD's blog, 1 is from YahooTV, 1 is from BuzzFeed, 1 from Ustream TV. None of these are reliable sources. Now, let's get to the other sources that are in the article, which may be RS. Reference 1 is from the New York Daily News, and actually mentions this channel, but is fairly routine. The TechCrunch source makes no mention whatsoever of this channel. Nor does The Atlantic Wire's source. The Bakersfield Now article does mention this channel, but it's hardly significant coverage, and is more about the parent company. As for Uproxx/Warming Glow, well, that doesn't look like a RS.

So, based on this, we're left with one reliable source that gives a decent amount of information, but is fairly routine, and another one that mentions the channel, but nothing more. As such, this channel fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Appreciate the deep attention to the article. It certainly needs improvement. Please help! The Pet Collective exists as an online video brand that was a part of a historic digital program in new media with the YouTube 100 Partner Program in 2012 converging online video with traditional Hollywood companies, and has a subscription base in excess of 160k subscribers on YouTube. The YouTube references are primary sources, the Irwin family, Sharon Osbourne, and Khloe Kardashian have participated on the channel. Not sure why this is recommended for removal though beyond needs for improvement. If anything it needs a bit of expansion. Considering this is a fairly new, new media brand, why wouldn't the online references be considered reliable sources? A RS is a bit subjective for such an object. I love The New Yorker, but an article there doesn't make something fact any more than an interview with the channel on Uproxx. The Pet Collective has been featured numerous times on Good Morning America and Today if that helps. If every YouTube channel was on Wikipedia, that would be silly, but when a new media brand is officially partnered with YouTube, produced by the world's largest independent TV company, and was birthed from the world's first $billion original video convergence between a dot.com mogul like YouTube and a traditional media company like FremantleMedia, recommendation for deletion feels a bit extreme. The challenge here seems to be with RS. But I would say that this entry is certainly more credible than 1000 smaller cable TV shows with entries that come under less attack because...well...they're on TV? Does qualification of a TV show article on Wikipedia come from a threshold of Nielsen ratings, possible celebrity affiliation, and a well known network? In 10 years, that thinking will hopefully feel silly, when historically brands like the Pet Collective were respectable early attempts to devote more than a year on the part of a traditional Hollywood company to produce for the same medium Wikipedia is on. Given that the issue is more granular with choice and use of reference sources, the hopes would be for crowdsourced improvement of the article first before highest stakes recommendation of deletion. Google/YouTube supports The Pet Collective, so Wikipedia community rejection is a bit baffling...though the thoughtful attention is appreciated. Would love your Wikipedia expertise to help clean up the article. I was also disappointed to not find any good YouTube channel templates on Wikipedia yet. This is a new area of popular entertainment...would love to help build it up. User:Tomas202020 17:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I applaud your enthusiasm, but YouTube channels are not particularly notable in Wikipedia terms, at least, not without significant coverage in reliable sources. If you could read WP:RS and WP:GNG, and try to reply a little more succinctly next time, then I may be more able to discuss this with you. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, thanks for the direction. This is first time I've received a deletion notice, and obviously I'm relatively new to Wikipedia contribution, but am keen to play by the Wikipedia rules to keep it a clean and credible knowledge base as evidenced from inclusion of an RS at all. Did my homework as requested and am keen to not have this deleted. In WP:DEL-REASON candidates for deletion under #6 and #7 state that a candidate should have had thorough attempts to find RS & verify, and articles that cannot possibly be attributed to RS. We definitely don't meet #6, and #7 would imply that an exhaustive search uncovered no RS at all. The problem seems to be in the choice of citations as you listed above. I am assuming that citation of an RS in an article and the "existence" of RS can be distinguished, as there are definitely more likely compliant RS in the world from TV news coverage to larger news publications, and the listed citations are of a volume and moderate credibility to show evidence of notability in WP:GNG for Wikipedia inclusion.
    • So hopefully this doesn't warrant full deletion of the article altogether as in WP:RS it states, "If NO reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Completely understand this. The Pet Collective does have plenty of sources to meet that criteria with a thorough search...I just included ones that don't seem to. Newb move.  :) Given that citations and sources need to be improved according to the WP:RS, I would request that queue for deletion be lowered to 'flagged for improvement' so we can improve the article citations. For example, this Variety article (http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/fremantle-breaks-with-youtube-on-pets-channel-1200403423/) should be considered an RS, that with article inclusion should hopefully reinforce a position of non-deletion.
    • On the topic of YouTube channels on Wikipedia, inclusion at all of an article for The Pet Collective on Wikipedia does not seem to match any major point in What Wikipedia is not any more than SourceFed or MyMusic (season 1), both of which were a part of the YouTube Original Channel Initiative, which point to secondary RS themselves including lists inclusive of The Pet Collective as a peer entity. Even if TPC is not the primary subject there is enough evidence that it is not just a fleeting mention. Hopefully this can all be taken into consideration for removing the article from any deletion queues. Just need a little more time to improve the article with better RS without the ticking clock of complete expiration, which would be frustrating. Can you lower the deletion flag to a less final outcome? User:Tomas202020 03:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I linked RS to you to show what Reliable Sources are. Could you please read the WP:GNG link, and respond? You've got a week to sort this article, whilst this discussion is open, and if no one votes "keep" or "delete", then it will remain open longer. Thanks for your coorperation. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. WP:USERFICATION is an option if the article creator needs more time to work on the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They do have some reliable sources such as Huffpost, CNN and ABCNews. I will go ahead and add new citations to the article to include links. -- User:kgal1298 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.209.234 (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ABC News one is from their blogs, so isn't a reliable source. The Huffington Post one is far from in-depth coverage, and is very trivial. You've not (yet) added anything from the CNN source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought ABC News would be credible I also added Fox on there. I actually did have a CNN one, but realized it was only a video on their channel and didn't get in depth about The Pet Collective and left it out. I have a few more sources I can add, but The Pet Collective tends to get smaller mentions about the channel. The stories on the Corgi videos explain the rise of the channel. I'll keep editing for now I think there are also some Tubefilter and Blip TV stories that I can source as well. Those websites deal strictly with online video news for the most part. User:kgal1298 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.209.234 (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are several articles about The Pet Collective and Freemantle's new deal with Blip - also The Huffington Post should be considered a reliable source, especially since there are many articles regarding The Pet Collective, not just one. They are part of a huge entertainment company Fremantle Media who also does American Idol and many other shows. These aren't single random links. Thank you for listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjarabia (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm concerned by the number of SPAs whom have popped up here to vote keep - that's usually a sign that notability is marginal at best. ABC News is credible, their blogs, not necessarily. I'm more inclined to state that the channel itself is not notable, but that the videos about the Corgis may be - but that's tight as well. There's a real lack of in-depth coverage about the channel in any of the non-primary sources, which is the problem. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just trying to fix the sources. Not a SPA I just forget to log in. I've done editing before mainly small additions and website link corrections when doing research. Notability of the channel is accurate though as it's owned by a larger network such as Fremantle I'm not sure how the channel comes under that scrutiny. Also, I edited the Blip.TV news which is from a credible source. I will go back through the wiki article and see if I can fix the sources for the remainder of it as well are you not counting Tubefilter as a reliable source? I'm only asking because then there are other wiki's out there that use them as a source and it would be good to know if that doesn't count. Let me see if I can keep adjusting the article otherwise in the case that deletion does happen then they will just have to work on gaining more reliable sources in the future. Thank you for commentary. [[User:kgal1298] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgal1298 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Are there really a significant number of SPAs? I only see a few above, and really not all that many comments in general. I know it's not necessarily Wikipedia's place to set trend-lines for this stuff, but diversified media distribution models/digital content creation are a relatively new fad. This article may be a little over-ambitious and overly in-depth in its attempt to promote itself, but digital content platforms/internet channels are a relatively new medium, and are moving to be on-par with their television network counterparts. Not all such channels necessarily deserve a Wikipedia article, but I would suggest that, regardless of reputable sources, a channel backed by one of the largest production companies (apparently FremantleMedia, who appear to do American Idol and X Factor), and distributed as a collaborative project with Youtube (rather than just being user-uploaded content to the site) is a channel worthy of its own page. President David Palmer
  • Yes, there are. Of the people here, only myself, you, kgal and Whpq (who voted delete) made their first edit in other topics, and kgal appeared from a 2 year absence to comment here. Also, off topic, but you really should do something about your sig, as it appears to lack any date, or link to your talk page. Just because a big company runs a YouTube channel does not make said channel notable - it makes it a candidate for, at best, a merger. There are no specific guidelines for internet things of this type, which means we rely on good-ol' GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And other than the few of us, there are only a couple comments at all. That was more my point...there doesn't seem to be much SPA hijacking because there isn't much conversation at all. I hand-keyed my username at the end because my tablet wasn't letting me insert tildes, but that's fixed now (or should be?). I've always found GNG to be highly subjective (something common in the public consciousness is not always and immediately reflected in the 'reliable sources' realm of society, anyway), and I've been one to personally err on the side of over-expanding rather than under-expanding our number of articles, within reason. I see no harm in just trimming down this over-ambitious article and seeing how it grows, since I can already find mentions of the channel on HuffPo, a few late night shows, the Today Show, and some other sites. Is this really any less notable than the plethora of short-lived memes that have found homes on Wikipedia, whose primary sourcing would ALSO be from the "Buzzfeed" realms of the internet? President David Palmer (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I just forget to login a lot, but I have made minor edits with in the past year, but thanks for concern. I'm always on wiki and I'm use to places saving my id so it's not with in my habit to sign in all the time. Anyway I do need to fix my sig I see that. In the mean time the article can be shortened, but the fact remains as the channel grows it will most likely gain more press, which in the case of deletion will just mean eventually the page will most likely be brought back. So if the article focuses on becoming shorter to accomodate the sources that you agree with then it should be able to stay because otherwise we can just go through the entire process of having the article resubmitted once they have more profiles on it. I don't think Fremantle would put money into something without expecting to live for the long haul. kgal1298 (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 00:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I went through and deleted not cited portions of the wiki page. I did add in The Unaboptable's since I found the source to be genuine and well informed. However I did notice AP Press was cited often and the article did have an author and it was picked up. I added more news sites this article was posted on, but wasn't sure if we are counting that. I also am not sure if the "controversy" portion of the Corgi Explosion is cited enough to warrant the information being included. I do think the lead in has enough sources though as well as "The Growing Up Wild" portion of the article. Please advise if there are more changes needed or if there are some sources that are just not acceptable, but at this point I think all sources for this topic have been exhausted. kgal1298 (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Comment'" - I don't have anymore sources I can add at this time. So it looks like they will have to increase their press and then once they do try to get the article resubmitted. kgal1298 (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.248.209.234 (talk) [reply]
  • [1] is trivial with regards to this channel, and is only in-depth about the dog. [2] may be a RS but it's fairly local/limited circulation again. [3] is primarily about the CorgiCam, and features two things about the channel: a promotional statement by a member of staff, and the fact that this channel happens to show the CorgiCam videos. [4] seems like a good source. [5] reads like a press release. [6] also reads like a press release. [7] makes absolutely no mention of the channel. I think we're beginning to get close to showing notability, but it's not quite there yet. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its youtube-related, so Youtube links are acceptable to a certain point. I see coverage from NY news, Huff post, Yahoo and others. While a lot of terrible ones are mixed in, this seems to have more coverage on the net and is likely to pass GNG with some effort. Don't discount the primary source youtube videos entirely though; they can serve a limited purpose. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Being YouTube related means the sources are automatically primary and thus cannot be used for notability! Have you actually assessed the sources, like I have? The notability is looking borderline, but there's a real lack of in-depth coverage about the channel in most of the RS. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I hate relisting such discussions, but I am afraid we need more time with this one. Given an undue large number of SPAs in this discussion, all voting keep, I would appreciate attention of experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 16 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Pet_Collective&oldid=1138851186"