Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COPS SAMP

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. Singularity 08:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COPS SAMP

COPS SAMP (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested PROD. This series (primarily, but apparently not exclusively, YouTube videos) is unsourced. Its only assertions of any significance are YouTube/website views, which aren't an indicator that it passes WP:WEB or WP:N. The only reasons that this wasn't, in my opinion, speedily deletable by criterion A7 are that it seems not to be entirely web-based (the lead claims DVD distribution) and that the YouTube popularity could be construed as an assertion of significance. Still, with only 34 Google hits, none of which seem to be reliable third-party sources, I don't think that there's enough reliable, independent content out there currently for an article. — TKD::Talk 13:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. — TKD::Talk 13:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability. References? Deiz talk 14:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and purge with fire: Bombs hard on any measure of notability; for instance, I'd love to see some proof that there are half a million page views and five hundred subscribers to this apparently insignificant work. This article involves the sole Wiki activity of User:Tenaciousd2005, its creator and principal editor, and so looks to be a WP:SPAM violation as well.  RGTraynor  15:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPA rather than WP:SPAM? Deiz talk 15:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

No; the reason being is that a SPA created to push a Youtube "series" by a "production company" likely has a corporate goal attached to it.  RGTraynor  20:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and above. wikipediatrix 16:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - It's not got enough (any?) reliable 3rd party sources, and I suspect a bit of WP:COI involved. Neranei (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 23:00, 23 August 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.