| Revision as of 07:38, 13 September 2009 editCOMPFUNK2 (talk | contribs)17,960 editsm comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:43, 13 September 2009 edit undoOtterathome (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,510 edits 2 repliesNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| *'''Keep''' The show is actually still in progress so the person suggesting deletion has failed to do their research. Typically with shows like this their creators are under an NDA which limits what they can say to the press. A more in depth discussion of the importance of this series to the web series genre might be useful since it is a canon show yet created largely independent of the original creators of the LG15 franchise. What is mostly disturbing about this nomination is the flagrant abuse of the wikipedia process by one individual who seems to be conducting their own personal vendetta against the LG15 franchise. One has to seriously question their motives at best and their extreme lack of judgement at worst.--] (]) 03:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' The show is actually still in progress so the person suggesting deletion has failed to do their research. Typically with shows like this their creators are under an NDA which limits what they can say to the press. A more in depth discussion of the importance of this series to the web series genre might be useful since it is a canon show yet created largely independent of the original creators of the LG15 franchise. What is mostly disturbing about this nomination is the flagrant abuse of the wikipedia process by one individual who seems to be conducting their own personal vendetta against the LG15 franchise. One has to seriously question their motives at best and their extreme lack of judgement at worst.--] (]) 03:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :*"''The show ran for ten weeks, followed by a twelve-video finale called "Quietus," which ended on July 28, 2009''" so the article is wrong?--] (]) 10:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Speedy keep'''. The article is well-sourced and notable. Also, this (and the previous) nomination leads me to the conclusion that this was a ] nomination, not to mention ] and ]. ''']''' 07:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | *'''Speedy keep'''. The article is well-sourced and notable. Also, this (and the previous) nomination leads me to the conclusion that this was a ] nomination, not to mention ] and ]. ''']''' 07:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *Is anyone actually going to address the reasons why it was nominated or just assume bad faith? Here is some reading material for everyone before editing this AFD again - ] + ] + ].--] (]) 10:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 10:43, 13 September 2009
LG15: The Last
AfDs for this article:- LG15: The Last (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A web-series that won a web-series competition called "The show is yours" related competition. The competition got some third-party coverage on digital blog sources, but after the competition was over, it only managed a to get coverage in one digital blog, from thereafter there was no further coverage. So the show that won the competition only managed a one line mention in ref 6. Note refs 1, 3, 4, and 5 are the only independent 3rd party sources about the competition (don't mention the article name) suggesting it could be merged elsewhere. Ref 6 is the only one that mentions the article name.
The show ran it's 10 week course from Jan 2009-March 2009 but never got any additional 3rd part coverage apart from one mention in ref 6. The very few 3rd party sources were all published between 5th Jan 2009 - 28th Jan 2009 making it an obvious one off event.
In summary, the competition to the run up of the show got a little coverage, but the result of the competition itself never got anymore interest (note 1 source). Seeing as the winning show finished 2 months ago, any new additional coverage seems very unlikely. So delete for being a one off event and failing our general notability and web notability guidelines.--Otterathome (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep: Per WP:NOTAGAIN. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy keep or merge. Qualifies as frivolous renomination as described in WP:NOTAGAIN, given that not only was the last AfD just a month ago, but he actually tried to merge the page away afterwards and the decision to keep the page as-is was made just two weeks ago, and therefore falls under the disruption clause of speedy keep applicability.
In addition, there is a proposed merging structure in last month's AfD which already had support from other community members, so a deletion is not necessary in any case.
As usual, this is just another iteration of Otter being unable to WP:GETOVERIT and WP:LETGO, and everything I said last time in support still applies. I'll copy it over if somebody insists, but something tells me we'll all see each other again next month anyway.
~ Renegade - 213.39.173.221 (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC) - Keep or in the alternative, redirect to lonelygirl15 Ikip (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The show is actually still in progress so the person suggesting deletion has failed to do their research. Typically with shows like this their creators are under an NDA which limits what they can say to the press. A more in depth discussion of the importance of this series to the web series genre might be useful since it is a canon show yet created largely independent of the original creators of the LG15 franchise. What is mostly disturbing about this nomination is the flagrant abuse of the wikipedia process by one individual who seems to be conducting their own personal vendetta against the LG15 franchise. One has to seriously question their motives at best and their extreme lack of judgement at worst.--Modelmotion (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- "The show ran for ten weeks, followed by a twelve-video finale called "Quietus," which ended on July 28, 2009" so the article is wrong?--Otterathome (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. The article is well-sourced and notable. Also, this (and the previous) nomination leads me to the conclusion that this was a bad faith nomination, not to mention WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:POINT. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Is anyone actually going to address the reasons why it was nominated or just assume bad faith? Here is some reading material for everyone before editing this AFD again - Misplaced Pages:Before commenting in a deletion discussion + Misplaced Pages:Arguments to make in deletion discussions + Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--Otterathome (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)