Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheerleader Diaries

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerleader Diaries

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

Contested PROD. Reason was "I would have thought this might have been a hoax, since searches on Newspapers, Books, Highbeam, JSTOR, and Scholar turned up zero hits, but there was a single trivial mention on News. There's a ton of hits on a regular search, but they all deal with a porn film series of the same name."

This amounts to failing WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 19:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete PROD was not actually contested; a case of apparent vandalism. No sources, no notability - deserves a quick removal. Scr★pIron^IV 20:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point but I am assuming good faith on behalf of the IP editor who deprodded it. Fiddle Faddle 20:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am neither a sockpuppet nor a vandal. Please strike that statement from your explanation. Thank you, 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:A51D:74AE:FC51:1E65 (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. If you had a reason to delete the PROD, you would have given a keep vote here, rather than whining about some perceived slight. So, no, I won't strike it. You, however, are free to return to your home under the bridge. Scr★pIron^IV 22:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 21:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the editor who prodded it. No rationale was given for the contested Prod. My reasons for delete are stated in my reasoning for the initial prod. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not ready to !vote here, but if this [1] is the subject (and is accurate) it's got at least a low-grade claim to notability. Several of the actors have articles, although their notability may also be questionable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of the point, I think, HW - we can't really be sure from what has been provided that it actually is the subject of the article. Yes, there is the external link - but no reference. Scr★pIron^IV 22:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This IMDB page [2] provides the Hulu connection. It looks to me like a low-production-cost Hulu series that went down virtually without a trace. Likely a borderline case, with a generic title that makes sorting through sources unusually time-consuming. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not all tv shows and such are notable, and IMDb is not a sufficient source - we need to show this got coverage somewhere else. See also WP:TVSHOW. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:53, 13 November 2015 (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.