Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG15: The Last (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 speedy keep per SK reason 2.3. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LG15: The Last

AfDs for this article:
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)[reply]

Note - article is currently being edited, to see which references the nomination is referring to, please check the history before the new edits were made.--Otterathome (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Keep or in the alternative, redirect to lonelygirl15 Ikip (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • All we know is that the show is still running. One could argue whether "Quietus" is over or not but if you had any knowledge of the subject matter you would know that the show itself is still running.--Modelmotion (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I already noted the added references added were a wiki and another trivial mention, so it still fails all the guidelines/policies originally mentioned. Editors can easily see what references I was referring to via the history of the article so there is no need to update it. I suggested you hide your comment because you failed to notice the ref numbers had changed. So you ended up responding to my comments on the original revision with the new revision where the ref numbers that I was referring to were changed.--Otterathome (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So link the revision? Why are you so scared about being open and up front about what revision your nomination is based on? Even in your new note at the top you kept it ambiguous.
Also, if the current page "still fails all the guidelines/policies originally mentioned", then you should have no problem updating and phrasing your argumentation in a way that is revision-independent.
In addition, your own note shows clearly the major flaw in this nomination: The reason given for why the nomination makes no sense anymore is "article is currently being edited". This is Wikipedia. The article in question is nominated for deletion. What did you expect? That people stopped touching the page and happily waited until you're done with this week's AfD? If your nomination relies so heavily on a particular set of references that the fact that people edit Wikipedia breaks it, that's a clear sign it doesn't apply to the general case.
We are not here to debate whether the page should have been deleted 5, 10, 15 or 20 revisions ago. We are here to discuss whether the page or topic in itself fails the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. So if your nomination only applies to one particular, outdated revision, it's time to retract it.
~ Renegade - 80.171.53.32 (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editing an article which is nominated for deletion doesn't invalidate the nomination. And I already said, the two new references, 1 is a wiki and the other is another one off mention. So the nomination still applies. Are you ever going to deal with issue at hand or just question my motives and how perfect the nomination is?--Otterathome (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have "dealt" with the issue at hand - I have already shown that your nomination is grossly inaccurate, based on unverifiable conclusions drawn from personal opinions, far from reality, asking physically impossible things and does not apply to the page in general, but only a singular, outdated revision.
I have nothing to do here. You are the one who has to prove that anything you said in your nomination is a) actually true and b) applies to the page in general, and not just a random revision from sometime yesterday morning.
You keep insisting that what you say applies anyway. So go ahead. Prove it. Show it. Write down how. I am a participant in a deletion discussion. I am formally asking you, the nominator, to clarify how your nomination applies to the page in general, rather than just a single, outdated revision.
Are you going to give me a clear answer or not?
~ Renegade - 80.171.97.160 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can find help at Help:Page history, as you seem to be unable, or unwilling to use the page history feature.--Otterathome (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try to insult me all you want, the fact stands: If I have to use the page history to find the page your nomination applies to, it doesn't apply to the page being discussed.
As such, it's invalid.
In addition, even going back and looking at the outdated, irrelevant set of references would not remove all your personal opinions about PR future, your demands for the sources to break the laws of physics, or your false characterization of the state of the series from the nomination. Even if your references were correct (which they aren't), your nomination would stay blatantly false and inapplicable to the page as it is.
You yourself admitted your nomination as it stands is wrong. Just do the right thing and retract it already.
~ Renegade - 80.171.97.160 (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you don't want to use the page history feature, then you won't be able to participate in this discussion.--Otterathome (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and recommend that nominator Otterathome be banned from editing lonelygirl15 related articles: This was just up for AFD a few weeks ago, and result was KEEP. Nominator apparently dislikes anything related to lonelygirl15 and keeps nominating related articles for deletion, despite just being warned not to do that again for Jackson Davis, where he did the same exact thing. There was also an ANI recently discussing the nominator where at least one editor recommended a topic ban for him/her. --Milowent (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just jumping in here before Otter pastes his boilerplate WP:NOTAGAIN remark: WP:NOTAGAIN directly, clearly and unambiguously states "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute [...] when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination". As such, despite claims to the contrary, the fact that Otter just recently tried to both delete and merge away this exact page is indeed a valid argumentation against this nomination.
~ Renegade - 80.171.97.160 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Just for clarification, I'm not unduly personifying the opposition, just living in reality - Otter is the only one arguing for deletion, so if anyone would post bogus WP:NOTAGAIN links, it would be him.
That doesn't seem very relevant to this nomination.--Otterathome (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2009 (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.