Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agents of Secret Stuff (2010)

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 keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agents of Secret Stuff (2010)

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

I don't know why this has to be discussed yet again, the "film" still has not increased in notability. The author of this article has not established any sort of notability or importance, or included any reference to any of his or her claims. 117Avenue (talk) 03:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete and Salt - still no real indications of notability, no references. This should never have been brought to AfD again - it should have been G4'd in a heartbeat. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except G4 doesn't apply. The criteria requires that the article be substantially similar to the old one - this isn't. If you have an issue with that, propose altering policy. Ironholds (talk) 04:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's been a year since this was deleted, I have no way to compare it with the prior version, and this version's in such poor condition, it might as well be a duplicate, since we have nothing to compare it to. Either way, it definitely deserves to be deleted - there are no indications of notability, no references - no need for it. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to recommend a potential redirect to Nigahiga, but the sources on that article kind of make me wonder how notable that person really is. There's a lot of primary and otherwise unusable sources on that article, such as links to IMDb. You might want to lump the two together, to be honest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. Before we all rush off to grab a salt-shaker for an amateurly-written stub that was brought back without any sourcing or "major" imrovements,[1] how about looking past its massive amount of blog coverage to see if any reliable sources speak toward the topic in enough detail so that we might expand the article to add sourced encyclopdic content and THEN determine if it ekes up on the notability criteria of WP:NF. Sure... the deletions of stubs in November 2010 and July 2011 may have been reasonable per lack of sources then... but the phenomenom released in November 2010 has spread and sources are available that were not in earlier AFDs. Expansion and improvement has already begun.[2] I believe the project is benefited by retaining finally this article which now has the context, sourcing, and enough encyclopdic information to serve the project and its readers in THIS version. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mr. Schmidt. At the risk of sounding WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm not sure how this is any less notable than any YouTube personality or production with coverage in mainstream press. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it looks like the earlier versions were simply contributed and re-contributed too soon to have decent sources available, and the latest was brought back with a only slightly changed name and no sources at all. This time, its time had finally come. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, would the closing admin be kind enough to move the page to simply Agents of Secret Stuff? It currently redirects to nigahiga. --BDD (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I had thought to do so myself if the closer did not... moving the improved content to overwrite the redirect. 01:25, 29 June 2012 (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.