Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:54, 13 September 2009

LG15: The Last

• Articles for deletion/LG15: The Last
• Articles for deletion/LG15: The Last (2nd nomination)

LG15: The Last (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A web-series that won a web-series competition called "The show is yours" related competition. The competition got some third-party coverage on digital blog sources, but after the competition was over, it only managed a to get coverage in one digital blog, from thereafter there was no further coverage. So the show that won the competition only managed a one line mention in ref 6. Note refs 1, 3, 4, and 5 are the only independent 3rd party sources about the competition (don't mention the article name) suggesting it could be merged elsewhere. Ref 6 is the only one that mentions the article name.

The show ran it's 10 week course from Jan 2009-March 2009 but never got any additional 3rd part coverage apart from one mention in ref 6. The very few 3rd party sources were all published between 5th Jan 2009 - 28th Jan 2009 making it an obvious one off event.

In summary, the competition to the run up of the show got a little coverage, but the result of the competition itself never got anymore interest (note 1 source). Seeing as the winning show finished 2 months ago, any new additional coverage seems very unlikely. So delete for being a one off event and failing our general notability and web notability guidelines.--Otterathome (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Per WP:NOTAGAIN, which states "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep or merge. Qualifies as frivolous renomination as described in WP:NOTAGAIN, given that not only was the last AfD just a month ago, but he actually tried to merge the page away afterwards and the decision to keep the page as-is was made just two weeks ago, and therefore falls under the disruption clause of speedy keep applicability.
  In addition, there is a proposed merging structure in last month's AfD which already had support from other community members, so a deletion is not necessary in any case.
  As usual, this is just another iteration of Otter being unable to WP:GETOVERIT and WP:LETGO, and everything I said last time in support still applies. I'll copy it over if somebody insists, but something tells me we'll all see each other again next month anyway.
  ~ Renegade - 213.39.173.221 (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or in the alternative, redirect to lonelygirl15 Ikip (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The show is actually still in progress so the person suggesting deletion has failed to do their research. Typically with shows like this their creators are under an NDA which limits what they can say to the press. A more in depth discussion of the importance of this series to the web series genre might be useful since it is a canon show yet created largely independent of the original creators of the LG15 franchise. What is mostly disturbing about this nomination is the flagrant abuse of the wikipedia process by one individual who seems to be conducting their own personal vendetta against the LG15 franchise. One has to seriously question their motives at best and their extreme lack of judgement at worst.--Modelmotion (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The show ran for ten weeks, followed by a twelve-video finale called "Quietus," which ended on July 28, 2009" so the article is wrong?--Otterathome (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. The article is well-sourced and notable. Also, this (and the previous) nomination leads me to the conclusion that this was a bad faith nomination, not to mention WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:POINT. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Is anyone actually going to address the reasons why it was nominated or just assume bad faith? Here is some reading material for everyone before editing this AFD again - Misplaced Pages:Before commenting in a deletion discussion + Misplaced Pages:Arguments to make in deletion discussions + Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--Otterathome (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is some reading material before editing this AfD again, Otter.
Feel free to address why everything we said in support last month was suddenly invalidated while we were tied up in your other frivolous nominations.
In addition, as usual, your entire representation of the matter is skewed, full of omissions and unexplained decisions on your part:

• • • You decided Tubefilter is not an independent 3rd party source of information; given that tubefilter is one of the leading news sources for this kind of content, I would like a detailed explanation for your personal opinion that Tubefilter is irrelevant as a reference.
    • You have decided that certain references do not count. To have done that, you must have checked all references. If you checked all references, you know full well that the winner of TSIY was only announced on January 26th, and that The Last was only determined as the actual executing contestant on February 2nd. As such, including in the nomination that only reference 6 includes the article name, implying that it shows the lack of prominence of the show, while several other references could not possibly have included the show's name because they were written before a winner was determined, is a clear attempt to spin the facts and manipulate the community - or, to put it in Misplaced Pages terms: Another sign of Bad Faith.
    • Reference 1: "EQAL launched a contest to integrate a fan series into canon, which produced LG15: The Last."
      Reference 3: "LG15: The Last (episodes 1-33)", "LG15: The Last takes the concept of the LG15 series ..." and countless others.
      The claim that "Ref 6 is the only one that mentions the article name." is a blatant lie and should not be tolerated.
    • In addition, given that the follow-up competition, The Show Is Yours 2, starts its submission period in two weeks, your assertion that it is unlikely there is any more press to come is bogus at the least. Any outlet reporting on TSIY2 will certainly look back at how TSIY1 turned out, and thus automatically report on The Last.
    • To address your question above: It was pretended the show was over for effect by its creators, but there is currently another episode in the works. Nobody got around to updating the page because you keep tying up everyone in frivolous deletion discussions. I'll fix it in a moment if no one has yet.

So, let's summarize:

Claim that only 1 source mentions the article name: Blatant lie.

Implication that all sources could have mentioned the article name: Bogus, several sources were written before the winner was determined.

Claim that only 4 sources are independent 3rd party sources: Unexplained personal opinion.

Claim that no additional coverage is to be expected: Bogus, EQAL's projects frequently appear on web show news sites, TSIY appeared there, so there's a high probability TSIY2 will be picked up by news, which, in turn, will lead to further coverage of TSIY and The Last.

Claim the show is over: False.

I guess just the facts didn't cut it. Oh well. We're used to the spin by now. Add to that that, once more, he is trying to discredit a participant's contribution by brushing him off and implying that what he says doesn't matter because Otter decided it was off topic, and the attempt to keep people off the discussion by trying to impose mandatory reading on them, and you can see that this is just a re-run of countless other Otter-AfDs we've had in the last month.

Nomination is false and deliberately misleading on multiple accounts, nominator is not neutral, nomination is frivolous, nominator is the only one arguing for deletion.

Can I have a speedy keep already?

~ Renegade - 80.171.53.32 (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I take it you didn't notice User:Zoeydahling added a wiki as reference and added another minor mention in a newteevee article. So yeah, that has changed all ref numbers, so of course it's wrong now. If you didn't assume bad faith to begin with, then you probably would have noticed this. Feel free to hide the above using {{Collapse top|comment}}{{collapsebottom}} and commenting again using the same revision I was using.--Otterathome (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

We are not discussing to keep revision X from Y days ago. We are discussing whether to keep the current revision, so I will argue from the current revision. If you are unable to argue for deletion now that the page was updated, feel free to retract your nomination. Otherwise, I suggest you update your nomination, clarify what references you were really talking about, remove outdated information and re-write it from a neutral point of view.

Besides, why would I hide my comment if you made the mistake of writing a nomination lamenting the quality of sources that would break once more sources are added? It is not my duty to ensure your argument stays coherent.

~ Renegade - 80.171.53.32 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Web or Internet)
• AfD debates