Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suburbs (web series)

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. Previous AFD was before the reliable source Ecoleetage found was published. So Why 21:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Suburbs (web series)[edit]

This page seems awfully similar to The Suburbs (online series) which was previously deleted. It also seems to fail WP:NOTE. Jonathan321 (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article would fall under CSD4, however, the last time it was deleted, it was under WP:PROD, so it is ineligible. Jonathan321 (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Suburbs (Online series)

~~Weak Keep~~Keep Unlike most YouTube-based happenings, this one actually generated one substantial article, in the September 16, 2008 edition of The Journal News, which is the Gannett newspaper for Westchester County, New York. The actual link is not working, but there is a cached page on Google of the article: [1]. The assertion regarding WP:MADEUP is inappropriate (and it was subsequently removed by the nominator). More media coverage would be welcome, but at this point I think it is marginal enough to warrant continued inclusion. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 17:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. View this AFD for more information as to why this article should be deleted. Jonathan321 (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back That took place before the Journal News ran a feature article on the series and its creator, which secured some degree of notability. Your claim that the subject violates WP:MADEUP suggests very little effort went into properly researching this subject before it was submitted for AfD consideration. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the past I requested deletion (inlcuding the AfD noted by Jonathan321) of earlier versions of this article and forks from this article (the article has been created and recreated with multiple titles, and at one time there were separate articles for episode lists and the cast list). Unlike those earlier articles, this one actually has a citation to 3rd-party coverage of the series, as noted by Ecloeetage. Accordingly, when this one appeared I did not nominate it for deletion. The topic doesn't seem particularly notable to me, but because I know almost nothing about online video series, I will stay neutral on the question of whether the topic meets WP criteria for notability. --Orlady (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wow, a subscrption of 70 followers on YouTube. Real impressive. There must be thousands of webshows on YouTube that have more than that, and they would be speedied. Jonathan321 (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment back Please refrain from making sarcastic comments that are not relevant to the points raised by your nomination. The fact remains that this subject has been the focus of non-trivial coverage by a major media resource, and that the points raised in your nomination appear to be incorrect. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Back. Not relevant? The fact that the show only has 70 subscribers is completely relevant. Jonathan321 (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Number of subscribers on YouTube is not a determinant of notability. However, it is also true that being the subject of an article in a local newspaper is not by itself sufficient to make a topic notable. --Orlady (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. True, Orlady, but the point I was trying to make is that just because it has one article in a not-so-huge newspaper doesn't establish notability. Jonathan321 (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that's what I was saying, too. Whatever. --Orlady (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A not-so-huge newspaper? The Journal News is sold in three New York counties and has a circulation of over 122,000. For a daily U.S newspaper that is not centrally located in a single municipality, that's a large circulation. (It is a "local" newspaper the way the New York Times is a "local" newspaper for New York City.) The newspaper is also part of the Gannett company, which is one of the largest media companies in the U.S. Separately, the number of subscribers on YouTube is irrelevant because people watch videos without subscribing to a YouTube channel. Again, I have to ask if any research was conducted in determining the notability of the subject before this AfD was filed. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the responsibility of the article writers and proponents to demonstrate the notability of their topics -- by providing information about notable aspects of the topic and by providing citations to reliable sources that have provided nontrivial independent coverage of the topic. --Orlady (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On a random episode[1], under 1,000 people have watched it. If we had an article for every webshow that had 800 views per episode, then we would be cluttered. Jonathan321 (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my !vote to Keep. The poverty of the nominator's arguments for deleting this article is difficult to appreciate, and using concerns about Wikipedia's bandwidth as an excuse to delete an article is inane. This web series clearly exists (it doesn't fail WP:MADEUP) and has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in a major media outlet (it passes WP:V). Ecoleetage (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What? When did I ever say anything about bandwith? Jonathan321 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK, I said I wouldn't take a position, but this discussion is getting nowhere. The article topic is not notable according to the relevant WP guideline at Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria. It has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" (one article is not "multiple" works), it has not "won a well-known and independent award," and it is not "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators." When in doubt, apply WP policies and guidelines. --Orlady (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the number of subscribers to this show are not relevant. What is relevant is the amount and quality of coverage in independent reliable sources, and a single newspaper item is not sufficient to clear the bar for notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I looked on Google News and Google books and could not find any references for this one; however, owing to the one article Ecoleetage found in the Journal News, which is a major regional daily in suburban New York, I will give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our standards for notability require multiple non-trivial references from reliable sources. One article in a regional paper, no matter how in-depth, doesn't cut it. No prejudice on eventual recreation if this gets further coverage in future, but Wikipedia is not an incubator. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Keep. I created the suburbs, im Charles Plummer, and i think the dramatic jump from "almost 70" to 90 subscribers in not even a month is extremely well and i dont think deleting this page is such a big problem..if it helps some loser sleep a night then do it, take it from ME the creator of the series & page, delete it if you must. Word will get around even more(locally), and its going to be back up here soon with more than one reference and guarantee i wont have anything to do with the creation of the page. And whoever took the time to recognize this i hope you watch the series and enjoy it, a lot of hard work and timing goes into it. A self made series by teens might have been another big reasoning for the little bit of "exposure". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starsking (talk • contribs) 03:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the message, Charles! It's nice to see a teenager creating something -- rather than deleting something! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Hope you enjoy the series.Starsking (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Weak Keep Good arguments on both sides. It has been covered by a third-party source, but not many. Assuming good faithm, I've defaulted to keep. Sam ^Blab 20:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per in-depth coverage in Reliable independent source. Trusting that more will be added as they become available. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:40, 2 December 2008 (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.