Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Original Zings of Comedy

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. WjBscribe 22:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Original Zings of Comedy

The Original Zings of Comedy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Page created by TheOriginalZingsOfComedy (talk · contribs) in an apparent conflict of interest. It's pretty tempting to consider this as spam. There is some minimal third-party coverage (which you can find among the 9 Ghits) but nothing substantial enough to build an encyclopedia article. Pascal.Tesson 04:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Delete as non-notable. Hornandsoccer^Talk 04:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait. Lots of people will be contributing to this article. Give it until the end of the week. This is an offshoot of Zebro, whose wikipedia page only grew as time went on. 01:57, 9 April 2007

Comment Since this AfD started, the article has indeed been edited by Leftpiano (talk · contribs) who made nonsensical additions of images to obtain this version. This is pretty much what is bound to happen when the article is constructed from first hand accounts rather than solid third-party coverage.

Delete For now I am on the delete side. This weekly phenomenon started last week. There is no reason to describe it as notable yet. Contact me at my talk page to change my vote if things seem different in by the end of the week. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait Who decides what is or is not notable? Exactly how many weeks would the show have to go on for to be considered "notable?" Does the fact that it runs until August not matter? Isn't this rather arbitrary?

It's actually not arbitrary. Notability guidelines are here. Look also here for verifiability, here for what we consider to be reliable sources, and here for our attribution guidelines. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - one show, two mentions in the local media... at this point, I don't think this really meets the needs of multiple, non-trivial references. If it takes off and becomes popular enough to draw more substantial press coverage, preferably on a wider scale, then an article may be appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, as it's too new to have much notability. Once it's more well known, we'll have something. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - does not claim notability. I wouldnt hold it up to Zebro for comparison; I was thinking of bring that article here when I found this debate. --Future Fun Jumper (TIC) 21:59, 15 April 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.