Futz! ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Please note that this deletion review is an exact repeat of a very recent one that was closed early for a reason unrelated to the review itself. While all responses for the short duration of that review were positive or neutral, and the closing administrator offered to userify the article, I would like to ascertain community consensus before working on the article. Furthermore, I plan to notify every user who was involved in and/or notified of that discussion - if you are one of these users, it is not necessary to declare this below (but I do not object to it either, of course).

Be aware that at least one user who participated in the prior discussion has declined to do so in this one citing the view that participating in repeats of procedurally closed discussions is unnecessary.

I anticipate this being a difficult deletion review due to the relatively small number of reliable sources, but I'll try to make my case anyways. Please consider that this television show is a series of shorts and that the sourcing standards for notability should perhaps not be set quite as high as for those normally aired in regular timeslots due to this.

Anyways, here are the new reliable sources I've found:

• [1], [2], and [3]
• [4] and [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]

The following reliable source was already present in the most recently deleted revision, but I have found additional links from it besides the first one:

• [9], [10], [11], and [12]

Lastly but quite possibly most importantly, this show was nominated for an award. Yes, it was only a nomination, not a win, but I think it still adds to its notability significantly:

• [13]

I would also like to ask that you take into consideration that DRV is apparently not supposed to be as stringent as AFD in terms of sourcing requirements. More importantly, please consider that WP:GNG only requires multiple reliable sources, so even two such sources could theoretically suffice. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 18:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• As I said earlier, the most reasonable thing will be to permit rewriting, followed by an AfD . AfD is always a better place to evaluate the sources, DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation of Futz! (TV series) to enable sources to be better evaluated, at an AfD if desired. However, I disagree with the suggestion that "the sourcing standards for notability should perhaps not be set quite as high as for those normally aired in regular timeslots". The same standard of notability should apply for short-format shows like this as for regular-length shows; if sources are lacking for a short-format show, that may be a sign that the show is not notable. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • User:Metropolitan90, regarding the point you made: I agree to some extent, but I was referring primarily to possible comparisons to more well-known shows. I don't think notability standards should be so high as to cause the deletion of articles on TV shows just because they aren't particularly popular. (Also, note that Futz! was actually the title of the deleted article, not Futz! (TV series).) Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 02:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment Notability is a concept which must be understood as completely divorced from popularity — Wikipedia contains many, many articles on thousands and thousands of recondite and abstruse subjects which are highly obscure and for which there is only a very small audience but whose subject matter is verifiably notable. It is notability that determines whether or not an article warrants inclusion in Wikipedia. Popularity is completely irrelevant. Of course, a potential article maybe both unpopular and not notable… Perhaps this is the case here. But please do not expect Wikipedia to lower its bar for inclusion based on the lack of popularity of a particular article's subject matter: popularity (or lack of it) has never been a criterion for inclusion or exclusion. The policy is simple: please understand that there are no exceptions to it, and no sympathy support for the unpopular or the obscure. KDS4444 ^Talk 19:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • User:KDS4444, as in the case above, I agree with you to some extent but you seem to imply that there exist some strict notability standards on Wikipedia when this is in fact specifically not the case - notability is always assessed on a case-by-case basis. This can be seen by taking a look at any significantly large sample of deletion discussions. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 21:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • A statement with which I do not disagree, and you are correct and I agree with you when you say that notability is assessed on a case by case basis. What I meant to emphasize is that popularity of a topic is not a criterion, that notability must be verifiable, that there are some consistent guidelines on what constitutes notability, and that the standard of notability does not change out of sympathy for what one person or another considers a worthy topic. Sure, the guidelines are flexible— but they do not "flex" for all the reasons (particularly emotional ones) people might sometimes like them to. Is what I was trying to say. Does that sound better, Dogmaticeclectic? And if it doesn't, then help me out. KDS4444 ^Talk 21:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply
      • User:KDS4444, I agree with that pretty much entirely and should perhaps have worded my own statements in this regard more clearly. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 17:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC) reply