Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wendy (webseries)

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. Wizardman 17:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy (webseries)[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable web series for which there do not seem to be any reliable, independent sources. A7 speedy deletion was declined twice. The subject fails both criteria of WP:NWEB. The only claim of significance seems to be the unsourced claim that the web series is "from the executive producers of The Vampire Diaries. The subject may be suitable for a summary list entry at List of works based on Peter Pan. - Mr X 18:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs improvement and better sourcing but I am finding substantial coverage as here and here. This is a notable web series that's been covered substantially in reliable sources. It was funded by Macy's and includes notable actors and producers. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The problem with the sources I'm finding is that almost all of them talk about the show launching. In other words, 90% of the sources that go into any true depth about the show all say the same thing: that this is going to launch. Most of them say the same things, which usually mean that the articles are all based on the same press release/materials sent to them. After its launch the mentions are pretty much just WP:TRIVIAL in nature. Even though sources such as this, this, and this might be in places that would be usable, but the coverage is so short and minimal that I really can't consider it to be anything other than trivial. I really want to keep this, but there just isn't enough out there to show that this had a true depth of coverage. Considering that it did have notable people involved with it (and keep in mind that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED), it's actually surprising how little notice this ultimately got. If someone could find a good review in a reliable source, I'd be willing to argue the point a little more, but this is just far, far too light to really pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the coverage is very substantial, as it is in the Variety piece and TV guide article, and the program is an innovative marketing ploy, and includes very notable celebrities, does it matter that there isn't a lot of coverage after the show's launch? I'm not clear on how this reflects policy. It was notable, but then wasn't because it wasn't covered after it was shown? Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about notability and coverage is that being considered different or having notable persons in it doesn't mean anything. For example, William DeFoe recently started doing something pretty cool recently where he and a few others picked some random no-name student directors in a contest and starred in their films. This is both interesting and unusual, but these shorts never gained any actual coverage to where they'd merit a mention. The same thing applies here. Now when it comes to coverage before the event, sometimes a lot of coverage can give notability even if the actual subject matter doesn't gain notice after the fact. However in these events the coverage shouldn't be articles that just say the same thing over and over again. When this happens (as is the case here) this means that the people reporting on the event received the same publicity/press release from the company and wrote an article based on that. If you could find just one or two actual reviews of the series that are in-depth and reliable, I'd be willing to change my vote. The problem here is that this webseries never really gained that much attention. We don't expect smaller webseries to get the attention of a big blockbuster movie, but we do need more than a handful of sources that say the same thing and trivial sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:42, 8 July 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 15 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article notability is the fact why I believe this article should be deleted, it has no specific guideline criteria, but being a webseries I could apply both WP:MOVIE and WP:WEB whereas it fails both and the also fails WP:GNG, first of all, for web content sources and references must not be trivial, also notability is not inherited, just because any famous actor or actress was a part of it, it doesn't necessarily mean the subject is instantly notable. Also it fails WP:MOVIE because it fails if not all, many of criteria established within WP:MOVIE#Other evidence of notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:55, 29 July 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.