Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How It Should Have Ended

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How It Should Have Ended

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

All of these sources are either from unreliable websites like youtube, twitter and facebook, or from the source itself, fails GNG. TzarN64 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My opinion here may hinge on the content of the first three sources in the article which are books that I cannot access at the moment. There is occasional coverage in national newspapers for some videos [1] that could be included in the article. There is persistent coverage on websites like Screen Rant which is considered somewhat reliable excluding info of living persons per WP:RSP. In-depth has been hard to find with relatively quick search, but it may be buried among routine coverage of individual videos. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

About coverage on Screen Rant as it relates to notablity for our purposes here, I will say this: Screen Rant is a low-quality source (to a large extent a listicle content farm) whose uses on Wikipedia are limited. It is reliable enough for straightforward statements of fact within its area of competency (entertainment, roughly speaking), but not for anything remotely controversial, WP:BLP material, or any kind of analysis. It is likewise not a source that should be used for establishing WP:Notability or assessing WP:Due weight. TompaDompa (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation! Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:04, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Received a Streamy award for Best Animated web series. https://www.streamys.org/nominees-winners/2010-nominees/ Coverage abounds. Cleanup might be necessary. -Mushy Yank. 12:43, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 20:10, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lean keep After spending more time searching, I am leaning keep for How It Should Have Ended. It has received some attention by academics studying youtube channels and was noted for having deep community engagement (i.e. many community members contributing to subtitle translation): [2] (unfortunately source may be paywalled for most users). There are the awards that have been noted. When it comes to animation/comic movies, I think having Stan Lee cameo in your work (and ask you animate his own how it should have ended episode) also suggests notability, though I recognize this is an unorthodox reason. The mentions in books sources are also suggestive of notability as the channel is receiving some academic attention. Unfortunately I haven't been able to read full passages to better establish notability/sigcov.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Anonrfjwhuikdzz. Paper thin keep for me. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable web series. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2025 (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.