Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Browne at Midnight

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, I am not convinced by the keep voters that this article is notable. Sean William @ 18:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Browne at Midnight

Browne at Midnight (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Web sitcom of dubious notability. The article at least asserts some, with a famous executive producer, and it provides links to two outside sources. However, one of the sources is a single-paragraph blurb about the show, and the other is at a service for journalism students online. I don't think this meets the WP:WEB criteria of "multiple non-trivial published works." However, it's borderline enough that I'd rather delete it via AfD than speedy delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, I added some more links... Is that what you're looking for? I am trying to make this credible, besides I don't really have an agenda in posting this stuff. It's more for fans of Kevin Bright's work to see what he's been up to since Friends and Joey. There was actually mention of "Browne at Midnight" on Kevin's Wikipedia entry, and as a sort-of "insider," I figured I'd post information about the show. I feel like the content is pretty neutral. If there is anything wrong with this specifically, please let me know. When it all comes down to it, Wikipedia is as much of a forum for sharing information as it is an encyclopedia. As far as I'm concerned, this is information that people would want to look for. For anyone reading this, thank you for your time. (Browneatmidnight (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC))
  • Comment. User:Browneatmidnight (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and has admitted a conflict of interest in the above article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment As I am supposed to edit other articles, I have done that now. I must say though, I have more of a conflict of interest with supermodels than with the show "Browne at Midnight" haha(Browneatmidnight (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC))
• C.Fred, I recognize that you're just trying to do your job, however I really don't see what the big deal is. While it is all possible that I have conflict of interest, I feel like the content of this entry is pretty much neutral. Maybe you can help me to understand. Thank you for all of your helpa and constructive critique and I will continue to work hard on this site. Is there any reason you do not like me personally? I hope i have not offended you in any way. If so, all apologies... thanks for helping me make this work :) ciao (76.19.21.94 (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC))
  • I don't have issues with the neutrality of the article. I have issues with it not being sufficiently notable to warrant an entry. Since it is web content—an online sitcom—it would further need to meet the guidelines for web-based content. One of those is coverage in "multiple non-trivial published works": i.e., the show needs to have gotten substantial coverage in several newspapers, magazines, etc. —C.Fred (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet the guidelines for web-based content. Simple as that. There are some links from the article... one to something from the college the show is from, one containing a trivial mention, and some more that do nothing to confer notability. -- Swerdnaneb 20:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A sitcom produced by a well known director, regardless of the fact it was made by college students. Perhaps its notability is questionable as of now, but further documentation would cover most of these issues. TheDrinkNinja (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As a new Wikipedia entry, this article is of course going to appear less "noteworthy" than a seasoned article aided by multiple users' input. Over time, I am sure that this, just like any other article, will grow and flourish as knowledgeable users add their two cents. It is more important to make sure that the upcoming additions are neither false nor slanderous than to question the article's current notability. Instead of nipping it at the bud, the article should be monitored to make sure that any future additions are truthful and non-biased. DanRo8388 (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)— DanRo8388 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment Okay. Let me make sure I have this right... You want to keep the article because it's new? -- Swerdnaneb 00:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The article being "new" really isn't a reason to keep it - you're right in that respect. However, it seems clear that while some fail to see the notability of this article, some disagree and others may simply see potential for notability in the future. Sure, you could delete this article and free up the infinitely small amount of space it takes up on a server's hard drive, arguing that it is just clutter among many more interesting articles. However, someone clearly has taken the time and effort to compose the article in a non-offensive and easy to read way. What is Wikipedia if not a hub of knowledge for the masses? The fact remains that the majority of the "legitimate" articles gracing this site will only be read a handful of times, and a Browne at Midnight article may be no different. Still, to take it upon yourself to deem someone else's work as "unworthy" of Wikipedia... well that just seems to go against everything Wikipedia was built upon. This is information being shared among the common people, and if there are people who might find the article useful or intriguing, it should not be deleted. DanRo8388 (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete or redirect. Deb (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2007 (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.