Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Valley Girl Show

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. close one but policy is clear that multiple is more then one. Please feel free to prod me for an undeletion as and when another source becomes available Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Valley Girl Show

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

Non-notable webcasted show. Limited GNEWS and GHits mostly blogs, PR, and entries lacking substance. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Their isn't any source I could find otherwise than these, and it is a real webs show, as I sourced the website it airs on, and that's where I got the crew from too. Also, it debuted on YouTube, so I would think sourcing YouTube in this case its an exception. Also, what do you mean that the entries are lacking substance, so I could fix it? ATC^{. Talk} 18:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I found a reliable source: http://www.redorbit.com/news/entertainment/1749846/talk_show_with_high_profile_silicon_valley_guests_elon_musk/index.html. I'll add it to the article later today, as I will be busy. ATC^{. Talk} 18:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this and will add it later too: http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/01/12/tidbits1.html. ATC^{. Talk} 18:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The Redorbit is a press release and as such does not meet the criteria for reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Ttonyb1: Since the San Francisco Business Times source is reliable, could the article remain? Just as a stub, and will continue looking for other reliable sources, which are extremely hard to find. For now, I'll add it as an external link and when I have more time, I'll add it as a source and erase it as an external link. ATC^{. Talk} 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The requirements are the site be the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works." Perhaps it is just a little too early in the lifecycle of the show for inclusion in Wikipedia. ttonyb (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her guests are high profile people from the investment and venture capital community. The tone might be light hearted but the substance is there.--Modelmotion (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – And how does this meet the requirements of WP:WEB? ttonyb (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment This is exactly the attitude that is causing Wikipedia editors to leave in droves. It has even been raised in the national media recently. I take the position that common sense is still a valuable commodity. I made a common sense arguement here. Please respect it as such. Watch the show. Study the episodes carefully. Do your due diligence and then make your own decisions. --Modelmotion (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Oh, please. How do you equate asking a valid question with presenting a negative attitude? Common sense is a valued commodity and it it what drives setting minimum standards for articles. Those standards help insure the quality and usefulness of Wikipedia. Although watching the show is not a prerequisite for establishing the notability of the article, how do you know I have not. I again ask how does this article meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia? ttonyb (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One source isn't enough. Joe Chill (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll find more, but maybe the web show hasn't met enough media releases yet (because the show is so new), and maybe it should be deleted. Let me find those other sources, they're not easy to find. Also, I don't like that this is become a dispute—I only like constructive criticism... :) Happy holidays! ATC^{. Talk} 04:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 11:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think it should scrape by.--Milowent (talk) 14:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Why? Making a general statement is not really helpful to the reviewing admin. Thanks... ttonyb (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the coverage in the san francisco business times, plus newteevee and tubefilter (the two primary sites that cover webseries), and short coverage in wired.com article, are enough for a keep.--Milowent (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like other editors, I'm seeing only one reliable source, and I'm concerned that the Keep proponents define "constructive criticism" as meaning "keep your grubby deletionist mitts off." We can only keep articles on valid policy grounds, and asking what elements of WP:WEB - the notability guideline explicitly governing web content such as webcasts - this site fulfills not only is not a meanspirited question, it's a fundamental question that it's our duty to ask, and the responsibility of any editor advocating keeping this article to answer to a closing admin's satisfaction. RGTraynor 16:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From past experience, I assure you that modelmotion's !vote is almost assuredly of the "keep your grubby deletionist mitts off" variety and a holistic "does it harm the project to have this article?" approach. I !voted "scrape by" because I realize its not a slam dunk keep, but the sources satisfy me that it should be kept. Many webseries get absolutely no press coverage, and would not pass muster. Only some get as much coverage as this one has, and some get less (The Suburbs (web series)) and have been kept, so that's my view of the current consensus.--Milowent (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just so you're all aware, I created and edited the article completely. ATC^{. Talk} 01:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on what Milowent said about that other article about The Suburbs (web series), I don't think there is any reason to delete this article, as it has a lot more sources then the other article. ATC^{. Talk} 01:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's one undeniably reputable source, but I'd want to see more before I'd say this meets WP:WEB. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:28, 26 December 2009 (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.

But The Suburbs (web series) was up for deletion because their were no reliable source (not even one) and the decision was a keep, so why would we delete this article if this one is more reliable than the other article? ATC^{. Talk} 04:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]