- 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 no consensus. NORTH AMERICA 1000 04:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever, Linda ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable WP:WEBCRIT Deunanknute ( talk) 18:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- This garnered three Canadian Screen Award nominations at the 3rd Canadian Screen Awards (the CSAs are the Canadian equivalent of the Emmy Awards), and therefore passes WP:NMEDIA right on its face — and while I acknowledge that further sourcing improvement is still desirable, as written this already includes referencing to The Globe and Mail, which is the kind of gold-standard The New York Times-level source that could singlehandedly carry notability all by itself even if there weren't any other sources already present. Keep. Bearcat ( talk) 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nominated for but but not recieved
WP:WEBCRIT.
The Globe and Mail is not an independent source for notability, as per the [
[1]] you linked for reference (quote - "In their series for The Globe,...")
Deunanknute (
talk) 18:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Their series for the Globe and Mail" is referring to the series of news articles about them, not the web series itself — The Globe and Mail is a newspaper, not a distributor of web series. And web series are also subject to WP:NMEDIA, where a nomination for a top-level award is sufficient — for both the Academy Awards and the Emmy Awards, for just two examples out of many, it is standard practice that if a topic (person, series, film, whatever) garners a nomination for the award but didn't already have a Wikipedia article, then the nomination is in and of itself enough notability that a single source which confirms the fact of the nomination is in and of itself enough to start an article with. It takes more than that to get the article to GA or FA status, certainly, but the mere nomination itself is enough notability to start with — and numerous past AFD discussions have upheld that the nomination itself is sufficient notability. The Canadian Screen Awards are not, and will not be treated as, a lower class of award for that purpose — similar past AFDs on non-winning CSA/Genie/Gemini nominees have also upheld that the nomination itself is sufficient notability. There can be no topic whose name appears on 3rd Canadian Screen Awards (or any of its predecessors, inclusive of the former Gemini Awards and Genie Awards) but is consigned to permanent redlink or nolink status — if a topic is listed in that award's main article, then it's automatically a legitimate article topic, because we're simply not doing our job as an encyclopedia if a reader is stuck asking "okay, this got nominated for a major film/TV award but what the hell is it?" but we're not allowed to provide that information. Bearcat ( talk) 19:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nominated for but but not recieved
WP:WEBCRIT.
The Globe and Mail is not an independent source for notability, as per the [
[1]] you linked for reference (quote - "In their series for The Globe,...")
Deunanknute (
talk) 18:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- The quote refers to the articles about them, yes, but the articles will also be written by them. This indicates bias and lack of independance from the subject. I don't see anything under WP:NMEDIA about nominations, only awards recieved. Deunanknute ( talk) 19:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Too insignificant despite the sources. Delete Komitsuki ( talk) 09:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This web series has won awards at the Miami Web Festival and British Independent Series Awards, nominated for the upcoming Vancouver Web Festival and was featured at the First Glance Film Festival in Philadelphia. -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 03:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete nominations don't count, obvious bias, and not a substantial program. The festivals in which the show has been nominated or won are not notable enough to justify keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.216.50 ( talk) 15:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 09:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 09:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. NORTH AMERICA 1000 04:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever, Linda ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable WP:WEBCRIT Deunanknute ( talk) 18:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- This garnered three Canadian Screen Award nominations at the 3rd Canadian Screen Awards (the CSAs are the Canadian equivalent of the Emmy Awards), and therefore passes WP:NMEDIA right on its face — and while I acknowledge that further sourcing improvement is still desirable, as written this already includes referencing to The Globe and Mail, which is the kind of gold-standard The New York Times-level source that could singlehandedly carry notability all by itself even if there weren't any other sources already present. Keep. Bearcat ( talk) 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nominated for but but not recieved
WP:WEBCRIT.
The Globe and Mail is not an independent source for notability, as per the [
[1]] you linked for reference (quote - "In their series for The Globe,...")
Deunanknute (
talk) 18:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Their series for the Globe and Mail" is referring to the series of news articles about them, not the web series itself — The Globe and Mail is a newspaper, not a distributor of web series. And web series are also subject to WP:NMEDIA, where a nomination for a top-level award is sufficient — for both the Academy Awards and the Emmy Awards, for just two examples out of many, it is standard practice that if a topic (person, series, film, whatever) garners a nomination for the award but didn't already have a Wikipedia article, then the nomination is in and of itself enough notability that a single source which confirms the fact of the nomination is in and of itself enough to start an article with. It takes more than that to get the article to GA or FA status, certainly, but the mere nomination itself is enough notability to start with — and numerous past AFD discussions have upheld that the nomination itself is sufficient notability. The Canadian Screen Awards are not, and will not be treated as, a lower class of award for that purpose — similar past AFDs on non-winning CSA/Genie/Gemini nominees have also upheld that the nomination itself is sufficient notability. There can be no topic whose name appears on 3rd Canadian Screen Awards (or any of its predecessors, inclusive of the former Gemini Awards and Genie Awards) but is consigned to permanent redlink or nolink status — if a topic is listed in that award's main article, then it's automatically a legitimate article topic, because we're simply not doing our job as an encyclopedia if a reader is stuck asking "okay, this got nominated for a major film/TV award but what the hell is it?" but we're not allowed to provide that information. Bearcat ( talk) 19:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nominated for but but not recieved
WP:WEBCRIT.
The Globe and Mail is not an independent source for notability, as per the [
[1]] you linked for reference (quote - "In their series for The Globe,...")
Deunanknute (
talk) 18:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- The quote refers to the articles about them, yes, but the articles will also be written by them. This indicates bias and lack of independance from the subject. I don't see anything under WP:NMEDIA about nominations, only awards recieved. Deunanknute ( talk) 19:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Too insignificant despite the sources. Delete Komitsuki ( talk) 09:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This web series has won awards at the Miami Web Festival and British Independent Series Awards, nominated for the upcoming Vancouver Web Festival and was featured at the First Glance Film Festival in Philadelphia. -- MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 03:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete nominations don't count, obvious bias, and not a substantial program. The festivals in which the show has been nominated or won are not notable enough to justify keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.216.50 ( talk) 15:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 19:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 09:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA 1000 09:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- 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.