- 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. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Krogzilla (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)
Notability is not established through references, and it is not inherited from Cory Edwards. Most sources are primary sources, and the reliable, third-party sources do not contain cursory mentions, not significant coverage. No prejudice against this being a redirect of the series being mentioned on Edwards's page. I don't know much about the significant involvement argument in WP:NF, but I'm not convinced that this applies here. Ost (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there's coverage from USA Today as already cited in the article, and also Chicago Tribune here link, and also from Anderson University here link. FWIW it's worth noting there's coverage in the form of an interview at a source called Bubble Blabber, and also Youbentmywookie, though those last two might be more suitable as external links or Further reading section. — Cirt (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Other parts of WP:GNG are satisfied, but I still don't see significant coverage. Only the Anderson University and Bubble Blabber links "address the subject directly in detail", and you yourself question the reliability of the latter. —Ost (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the Anderson University article as an external link and actually found a second article from Animation Magazine that covers Krogzilla in more detail. [1] Its a fairly short article, but Krogzilla is its primary focus. I added that as a reference. WP:SIGCOV doesn't seem to specify how many sources are needed, but it seems to me that between these, there are at least two independent, reliable sources that cover the series in detail. --Jpcase (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Other parts of WP:GNG are satisfied, but I still don't see significant coverage. Only the Anderson University and Bubble Blabber links "address the subject directly in detail", and you yourself question the reliability of the latter. —Ost (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I am the editor who created the article and will actually admit that it is not one of the more notable articles on Wikipedia. I do however, feel that it is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article.
- The series was created by a professional filmmaker and features professional actors in the cast. Wikipedia's notability guideline for film (WP:NF) states that significant involvement by a notable person may be enough to confer notability on a topic. I agree with Ost that WP:FN might not be applicable to this article, but I am not entirely convinced that should not be.
- Wikipedia's notability guideline for web content (WP:WEB) states that the association of a notable person does not confer notability upon web content. The page does not make any specific mention of online videos, but it does define web content as "any content which is distributed solely on the Internet", and that definition would match Krogzilla.
- Personally though, I feel that Krogzilla falls within the territory of both guidelines. It is a series of professionally made short films that have simply been released on the internet, instead of DVD or television. I believe that this is a fairly new way of releasing professionally made content and when the guidelines for web content were written, something like Krogzilla probably was not taken into account. WP:WEB gives the example of a website not being notable simply because it is maintained by a notable person. That's perfectly reasonable, but is a very different situation from a webseries. When it comes to videos, the guidelines on WP:WEB probably mean that the Don't Tase Me Bro YouTube video isn't notable simply because it features John Kerry or that any video of a concert/sports game uploaded to the internet isn't notable simply because it features famous musicians/athletes.
- Furthermore, this series has been mentioned by several reliable, independent sources. In addition to those mentioned by Cirt, Krogzilla has been mentioned by Variety [2], the Los Angeles Times [3], Animation Magazine [4], and cartoonbrew.com [5]. Granted, none of these articles go into much detail on Krogzilla, but I feel that different amounts of coverage should be expected for different articles. As I said, Krogzilla is not one of the more notable articles on Wikipedia; it's not a feature film or a long-running television series aired on a major network. It's a series of ten 3-minute-long cartoons that have been uploaded to YouTube. The fact that it has simply been taken note of by such highly esteemed news sources is an amazing feat that should be enough to illustrate its notability. --Jpcase (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above opinions. Appears to pass, less or more weakly, GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2012 (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.