Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arby 'n' the Chief

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. Wizardman 14:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arby 'n' the Chief

Arby 'n' the Chief (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

NN webfilm Nakon 15:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Unreferenced, and doesn't assert notability in the slightest. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - not too sure how this article has lasted as long as it has. No references, notability definatley can't be established, maybe even original research. Can't fly here... (not exactly sure, but maybe this WP:CSD#A7 applies here. after further reading, it doesn't apply, oops! Dusti^{complain/compliment} 16:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep – As our dependency for gathering information – news – references and other pertinent information from the Internet grows our need to change our mindset from the more traditional methods of establishing verifiable – reliable and creditable sources such as the New York Times and Time needs to be expanded to include sites like YouTube and machinima.com. As you will note here [1] this game has established quite a following. Over 100,000 hits on Google in reviewing the first 100 I would say this game has established notability. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: No, it really hasn't. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, and we really don't need to highlight every bit of self-promoted ephemeral pop culture. If reliable sources notice something, we should too. If they don't, then it really wasn't very important after all.  RGTraynor  19:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, sorry, I'm not ready to accept YouTube as a reliable source. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see any evidence that they were in the New York Times, or any other reliable source for that matter. I was originally going to speedy tag this myself, but I undid that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
• Alas, I am a big fan of the series, but as correctly pointed out, it doesn't have coverage in reliable sources. To Shoesss: YouTube can't be a reliable source because they aren't known for fact-checking and accuracy, which is required under the verifiability guideline. Just because more people are using it doesn't fix the problem that there's no way to make sure the information on the site is reliable and truthful. So with a heavy heart I must recommend to delete this article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - LOL- Not a problem, in fact, I understand the rational behind the delete opinions and would normally agree! However, though the video has not been covered by more traditional news coverage services, there is no doubt the video series have gained notability. My contention is that even in the face of providing an argument, from non-traditional sources, we have editors shutting their ears and eyes and stamping their feet claiming; “...well I do not see it in the New York Times. All I can say is that thank you to the man-in-charge that Fox News and CNN did not follow the established majority or we would all still be watching ABC – CBS and NBC only. Take care all. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not just "traditional news services" - WP:RS's definition also allows websites that have that kind of fact checking (GameSpot and IGN for instance would be as acceptable sources for this article if they had covered the series), as well as blogs that are run by members of the media or other reputable sources. The problem is that even this new media that does fall into "acceptable" under WP:RS hasn't covered this series either. I understand the concern that some editors do have some blindness to non-traditional reliable sources in deletion debates, but in this case the subject still doesn't have any coverage in any source that meets WP:RS, traditional or digital. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - The above comments are from the last deletion of this page, since then I have improved the article, added alot of info, etc. Please considering keeping this. AP Shinobi (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The article has been speedied twice. This debate is about the current version of the article. None of the content has changed (except for the addition of nonsense) since I nominated the article. Nakon 01:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • That was an edit from an anon IP, and has been deleted. AP Shinobi (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete- Not needed, it is just a parody of Halo and has been deleted several times before. Sorry. BW21.--BlackWatch21 19:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

So is Red vs Blue, but it is not nominated. AP Shinobi (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are ignoring that RvB has been written about in many, many reliable, independent, verifiable sources. This show, it would appear, doesn't even have one. Just like most of this lot.--Drat (Talk) 11:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If I find reliable sources? AP Shinobi (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can find multiple such sources (at least two, more is better), there is little reason the article can't stay. But remember that the sources must be reliable, independent of the group that works on the show, and must cover the subject significantly.--Drat (Talk) 14:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable, and doesn't seem to be easy to find notable sources for it? Gary King (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.19.244.20 (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment This article has been expanded and a character list has been added. The article is coming along very nicely. I will be adding citations and referrences soon. Please keep this article. AP Shinobi (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  You still haven't shown how or why the subject is notable. Nakon 14:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  It is an article about a machinima that is widely popular around the web. It also shows the Halo series has had a very large effect on modern day culture. Wiki is a database for information, and this provides adequate information to be kept in Wikipedia for further expansion. AP Shinobi (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  "Widely popular on the web" {{citation needed}} Nakon 19:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, Wikipedia's only a database of verifiable information, not everything that has existed. As I said to Shoesss, not even reliable Internet sources like IGN have given this series some significant coverage. A subject has to meet verifiability guidelines to get an article, and this series still doesn't do that. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

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.