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. Also List of The Nekci Menij Show episodes as a logical consequence. Any redirect is a separate editorial decision.  Sandstein  11:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Nekci Menij Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is heavily reliant on one or two sources to support the various statmements within, and those sources do not seem to support its notability as a whole as being "significant coverage in reliable sources". Much of it is to the Mashable piece, a post on the Tumblr blog "Popsessed", and mentions in various lists of things on social media but nothing of note (not even at the top of the lists). There's been no further press since 2012. I cannot seem to find anything in Google beyond what's already in use on the article, and similar clickbait lists. This is currently listed as a good article, but that simply regards how well written it is it seems.

So to sum up, sourcing is minimal and reliant on interviews with the creator on social media sites, and poor rankings in unimportant lists of random websites' favorite things. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, along with List of The Nekci Menij Show episodes, per WP:BARE, WP:FANCRUFT, and (for the list) WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Non-primary sources include Idolator/BuzzFeed (not signficiant coverage), International Digital Times (reliable?), and an NYU student blog (not reliable). Mashable is usable, but the article culls very heavily from it. –Chase (talk / contribs) 19:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there isn't enough third-party coverage to meet WP:GNG. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the Nicki Minaj article, as a worthy mention thanks to the few reliable sources. 和DITOREtails 03:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I removed a mention from the Nicki Minaj page as being completely irrelevant to each other though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Demonstrates notability with multiple reliable independent sources with sigcov. Here's another article by Mashable (pub. 2013): http://mashable.com/2013/03/13/nekci-menij-twitter/ 23W 23:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think 9 sentences demonstrate significant coverage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  9 sentences is medium coverage at most. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't count a roughly 200-word article as "plainly trivial". Aside from that link we still have significant coverage in International Digital Times and Mashable. I don't know the consensus on using student-run news blogs, but given that it's received some positive press and that the author has written for a mainstream newspaper, I think this is being used reliably here. 23W 20:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Interviews are primary sources, just saying. This does not qualify as a reliable source, so we can't use this either. Nothing can even be found on the series here to begin with. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The interview might be a primary source but it's still independent from the subject. It's also not devoid of secondary coverage (there's quite a few paragraphs before it goes into the interview). I can start up a WP:RSN thread on NYU Local if you'd like. 23W 20:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  "Primary source independent of subject" is an oxymoron. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see WP:IS: "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic, for example." 23W 21:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  A series creator is certainly not an independent source. Therefore, interviews with him don't count as notable coverage. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It's still independent; the interviewee did not author nor publish the interview. 23W 21:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No. WP:PRIMARY's footnotes include interviews as primary sources, independent or not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It also is not an independent source since it is based on the creator's word. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I never denied that it was a primary source.

  I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding how the definition of an independent source does not factor in whether it is primary, secondary or tertiary; please read WP:IS.

  whether or not the interview portion can be used to demonstrate notability, the independent, secondary commentary can. 23W 21:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Except we're all saying it cannot because it's primary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  y'know how sometimes interviews pepper in other (secondary) commentary? This interview has that (and more!) Hell, if you keep the first seven or so paragraphs you have a decent-sized review. But I'm just repeating myself now so I'll go. 23W 22:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You are right that the article does feature a quite lofty review but it just shows the ephemerality and bare notability as mentioned elsewhere in the debate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I've seen WP:BARE being thrown for both reason to delete and keep, but I digress. 23W 23:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Doesn't meet notability requirements, and as mentioned above, the sources aren't the best. If you want to put it into perspective, this series' account only has 20k subscribers, whereas the top accounts have tens of millions. Upjav (talk) 03:07, 20 August 2014 (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.