Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Camp

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; as the subject has a section in Rooster Teeth, I have redirected the title to that section. bd2412 T 02:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Camp

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

Animated web series not covered by independent reliable sources. Fails GNG, and NFILM. Wikipedia is not a

indiscriminate coverage. I tried to re-establish a redirect [[1] but it was reverted and no reliable sources were added after a number of edits by the reverting editor ([2], [3], [4]). The series has not received full-length reviews by nationally known critics, is not historically notable, has not recieved any major awards, and has not been taught at colleges or universities, and so on. The article itself is merely routine information as if this were a TV Guide for the web. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep It doesnt matter if it has full-length reviews. its made by Rooster Teeth and it deserves its own page. Crazybob2014 (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 18:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete. Actually, @
the general notability guideline. I did a bit of searching, and I couldn't find a single article that I would call "significant coverage in a reliable source". I did find a few instances of reliable sources covering Camp Camp (Entertainment Weekly, Mashable, TubeFilter, Animation World Network), but it was all trivial coverage -- most of them were just a few short paragraphs to accompany a trailer. --IagoQnsi (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 12:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing the basic notability guideline
WP:SIGCOV and the invalid reason for creating it. Per author own admission (above) it was created not because it is notable per se, but because the author thinks since "its made by Rooster Teeth [it must have] its own page". Ammarpad (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. No significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I believe one of the bases to delete this page to be slightly misguided. I do not believe
WP:WEB (as opposed to NFILM), it is stated that "when evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture." I am unsure to what extent this means, but at the very least– this web content has often been topic of discussion on the Tumblr platform. I don't know if that is of any relevance to this debate, or to WP:WEB, but I figured I'd offer up that information. — ^Systematic_Anarchy ( t • c ) 23:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
— SystematicAnarchy (talk • contribs) has made only one edit on their userpage outside this topic.
Delete - notability is required - please see
WP:GNG - and this doesn't make the grade by quite a long way. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete GNG fail, and no SNGs brought forth to save it. I would agree with SystematicAnarchy except I want some more news articles to satisfy the GNG for me. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 01:58, 2 November 2017 (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.