Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spellfury (2nd nomination)

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) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spellfury

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

Yeah. No. Only cites are either not significant in themselves to demonstrate any notability (some nothing blog does interview) or are significant sources but cover this topic trivially (mere mention as one item in a short article listing lots of topics, for example).

Article is and has been nothing but free advertising space. DreamGuy (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dreamguy is incorrect, Spellfury has been deemed notable, the show has been mentioned in Wired.com and Ain't it Cool News those aren't "some nothing blogs". Although this isn't reflected on the wiki for it but their last episode has a Coors Light product placement in it this is very interesting and notable in the webseries world. The results of the last discussion said "The result was keep. SPAs and poor arguments aside, there does seem to be a genuine case for keeping, if a somewhat weak one. Shimeru 07:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.54.9.239 (talk)
Keep A show covered in apropriate genre sourses Tubefilter, Wired.com and Ain't it Cool News (as shared in previous AFD) has enough notability for Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article as it stands, is poorly written and unenyclopediatic. But AfD is not for cleanup, and as noted the series has established notability. A notable topic that is horribly written shouldn't be deleted unless it's to be started over, and this one isn't bad enough to need that. (Also, deletion rationales that start out "Yeah. No." are asking for trout.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:40, 1 October 2011 (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.