Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All Growz Up with Melinda Hill

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. Concerns about WP:SIGCOV swing the policy based rough consensus. Mkdw ^talk 04:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All Growz Up with Melinda Hill

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

I came across this as an A7 candidate (tagged by Dkendr), however there's just enough in the article to where I don't think that it falls under A7 criteria. The sources were just enough to squeak by, however a look at them doesn't really seem to show where this web series would overall merit an article. Many of them are self-published sources and others are brief. One of them (WN) isn't really usable at all. The few that are in places that would be seen as a RS are fairly brief and in passing, not really enough to satisfy NWEB.

As far as I can tell, this was an extremely short lived web series. If the creator had a page I'd suggest redirecting to her, but it was moved to the draftspace per this AfD. If that draft article ever gets moved back to the mainspace this could be redirected there, but not before that happens. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Nothing notable about series or performer; self-syndicated at best; a couple of notable guests does not a notable show make. Moving to draft space pending as noted above would be charitable. Dkendr (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 18:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Human3015^{Let It Go} 18:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned as I commented at the Melinda Hill AfD as it was questionably solidly notable and improvable and this article seems symmetrical as well. Notifying Melinda Hill AfDers Ultraexactzz, Tomwsulcer, Jreferee, Chiswick Chap and Ivanvector. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources are inadequate; were the parent article to find sources, then this could be a redirect, but that seems a distant prospect at best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article text now reads like a Wikipedia article and there enough source material in the article right now to support the text. The article can be improved with the source material from the deleted Melinda Hill article or the draft, and the coverage given to the topic by the Huffington Post[1]. -- Jreferee (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a rundown of the sources:

Sources

Tangled Web WW. This is a blog, so it'd be considered a WP:SPS. These are rarely considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia unless the site is routinely cited as an authoritative source in other reliable sources. A look around shows little coverage in other places, so this would be an unusable source to establish notability and isn't really usable as even a basic source either. There's also two interviews later on in the article, but the issue here is still the same: the blog isn't cited frequently enough for it to be considered a reliable, authoritative source to where it'd overcome it being a SPS.
Entertainment Tonight. ET is seen as a reliable source, however this isn't really an in-depth article. It mentions that Dick is going to be on the show, but doesn't really go into depth about the show itself as Dick is the main focus of the article. It's basically just a short article that at best could be seen as a WP:TRIVIAL source, so it's unusable for purposes of establishing notability.
Adweek. This is pretty much identical to the ET source in that it's insanely brief. The show is more of the focus here, but it's still pretty much just a brief article and would be seen by most on here as unusable for notability giving purposes.
Comedy Bureau. This is another short, trivial source and is pretty much just a reposting of one of the show's videos. Whether or not the site could be used as a RS in general is somewhat in question. It has an editorial staff, but it's not really relisted elsewhere as a reliable source. That's sort of a moot point, since this source is so brief that even if it is reliable, it still wouldn't be in-depth enough to establish notability.
Comedy Cake. This is another brief source, since it really only just reposts videos from the series. There's also still the question as to whether not the site is even a RS, however like the last one, this is so short that the question of reliability isn't really the biggest issue here since it'd still be too short to establish notability.
Pop Goes the Week. Another short, trivial article. Same issues as to whether or not it'd even be considered a RS. Unlike the others, this one leans more heavily towards it being not usable than anything else even if it was lengthier.
LA Weekly. This one is good and essentially what we need in the article. It's by a RS and while it's not insanely long, it's still lengthy enough to be considered in-depth, especially since it focuses on the show itself.
WN. I've always seen this site as unusable since the site only aggregates things from somewhere else and doesn't actually make the content themselves. A look at the page shows that they took this particular source from Examiner.com, a site that's actually blacklisted on Wikipedia and considered an extremely unreliable source. If this article is kept, this source needs to be removed.

Ultimately all that we have here is one good source and many, many trivial sources, some of which are in places that are either unusable or likely unusable as a reliable source in any context. The content in all of them is mostly "this show is going on, here's a video" and only give a brief overview of things - not what I'd consider to be in-depth enough to establish notability and no matter how many trivial sources we have, those still won't equate out to an in-depth source. If there was another in-depth source then maybe, but we don't have this here and the only ones that are in-depth are self-published sources that do not appear to be listed as an authority elsewhere. It's incredibly hard for SPS to be counted as reliable sources, but it's still a requirement. It's really not enough to establish notability for this show on its own. As far as using stuff from Hill's draft article, that's not really a good option here since you need to establish notability for the show, not Hill - and I don't see any additional sources in the draft that would assert notability for the show. I also have to point out that the draft states that she's written for the HuffPo, which would make coverage from them primary at best, and a look at the HuffPo link shows that these were things written and posted by Hill herself, which confirms that they'd be primary and unable to assert notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:27, 13 January 2016 (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.