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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:39, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Role (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)

Absolutely no significant reliable coverage for this webseries on Twitch. It doesn't help that its name makes it difficult to look for hits. I thrice tagged this for speedy deletion but various users kept removing the tag, so AfD it is. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy deletion tag has been removed repeatedly because your claim of the lack of significance is unfounded. The article lists several prolific voice actors as cast of the show. It has hundreds of thousands of viewers and has collected tens of thousands USD in charity donation, each of which alone should be enough to qualify as a reason for WP:Significance. 5.147.15.44 (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being a popular web series or being involved in charity are not strong claims to notability. Please read WP:GNG and WP:POPULARITY for more information. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not required under WP:Significance, which was your initial reason for speedy deletion. I quote: "Significance is a much lower standard than notability." 5.147.15.44 (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The removal of the speedy deletion tag by one of the editors on this page was inappropriate. That said, I see no reason for this article to be deleted. It is no less significant or notable than articles on other major Twitch streamers like Trump_(Hearthstone_streamer), who has a much more difficult name to search for. Deleting the article because of the common name despite being well-sourced is an error, in my opinion.--Marstead (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the the notation. Several of the new editors are more aware of the rules governing the speedy deletion tag, and are making strides to be sure that the article is conforming to standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.194.16.204 (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, it probably was inappropriate, especially doing so without any explanation. But as someone not familiar with the daily workings of Wikipedia, I have to ask: is it a common practise to flag new articles for speedy deletion, minutes after they have been created, before anyone even had a chance to work them over? 176.198.254.196 (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The commonality of the name makes it difficult to research, but I can find no sources which cover the show in-depth which are from reliable independent sources. WP:Significance is a standard used in speedy deletions; AfD requires the higher standard of notability, which this article, which is currently sourced only by non-reliable, and non-independent sources, does not come close to meeting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article does reference such a source: A 1 hour and 20 minutes long podcast with Critical Role as it's main topic (in-depth) made by Wizards of the Coast, a major games developer (reliable) that is not directly affiliated to Geek&Sundry or Critical Role (independent).^[1] 5.147.15.44 (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that you consider WOTC "independent" of what is essentially a giant product placement of one of their major commercial lines is a bit telling. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge WOTC is no way, shape or form affiliated with Geek&Sundry or Critical Role; that makes it independent. And according to WP:BIASED, "sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective". 176.198.254.47 (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been steadily gaining specific independent medial coverage citations that speak to notability and significance and that are not directly affiliated to Geek&Sundry or Critical Role (independent).Example ^[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennefRiggles (talk • contribs) 18:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GNG has a three prong requirement where each prong must be met, and the EW fails spectacularly on the "significant coverage" prong. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - While I disagree with one editor's repeated removal of the speedy deletion tag from this article, it has received edits from other users and appears to be a significant and well-sourced article. Any vote to delete this article should explain why Trump_(Hearthstone_streamer) and Kripparrian should not also be deleted by the same argument. Trump & Kripparrian are comparably popular Twitch streamers but their wiki articles are more poorly-sourced. This article should not be deleted because of its "common name". Please see other sources posted here by other editors for reference.--Marstead (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could see an argument to rename the article Critical Role (web series) if this helps with the name commonality concern.--Marstead (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I see enough sites on the article covering and mentioning the show to satisfy Wikipedia's criteria Darquis (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, since sufficient, independent sources exist. Disambiguation, as per Marstead's suggestion could be helpful. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 01:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Independant sources citing Critical Role - Previous users stated coverage for the series was hard to find.

^[3] Sandiego.com's announcement of G&S and Critical Roles appearance at San Diego Comic Con

^[4] IMDB entry for Critical Role

KennefRiggles (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC) KennefRiggles[reply]

^[5] Tvtropes entry for Critical Role. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.194.119.181 (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^[6] "Vin Diesel nerding out over Dungeons and Dragons is an amazing slice of internet" The Independent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.194.119.181 (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^[7] Diesel Powered D&D: Watch Vin Play Dungeons and Dragons as His 'Last Witch Hunter' Hero — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.194.119.181 (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems all but one of the above are just brief mentioned and are more about D&D and the streamers rather than the show itself. If the streamer had his own Wikipedia article I would not be opposed to a merge. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and other than the Independent, not one is a reliably published source. And the Independent is textbook example of trivial mention.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not appropriate ..Previous suggestion of "merging" with the streamer article does not apply, Geek & Sundry, who produces the show is a legit company with its own Wikipedia article, and over 50% of the cast members also have their own Wikipedia articles, wich are clearly detailed in the article in question and have been since 24 October 2015. --KennefRiggles (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not gained by being tied to notable others. the topic itself must be the subject of coverage -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no significant coverage about the subject in third party reliable sources. while someone has done a good job of refspam, even a cursory review shows that most blatantly fail WP:RS. when looking at the few remaining third party reliable sources: Independent, Entertainment Weekly, Polygon, they either only briefly mention the subject in passing or dont even mention the subject at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny how people that vote for deletion keep ignoring the D&D podcast (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/critical-role-livestreaming-dd) which has been referenced in the article since day 1. 95.222.157.46 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny how people consider that WOTC should somehow be considered an "independent" source for a subject that is essentially a product placement commercial for a major WOTC product. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I worry that this defensive attitude may be poisoning the well for the editors voting to delete this page, even though this user's point is valid. I think the decision to Keep or Delete this page should not be made in reaction to this attitude or the repeated erroneous removal of the speedy deletion tag--please see my comment and compromise suggestion below. I think given the quality source (Official Wizards of the Coast reference) a disambiguated article title should be a fair compromise for all involved. Marstead (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; Suggestions Regarding Geek & Sundry Merge; Disambiguation Compromise Good comments, everyone, and thank you for calling out the Geek & Sundry article! Reviewing that article (Geek & Sundry), I think arguing to merge Critical Role there is comparable to merging Breaking Bad into the article on AMC_(TV_channel). I'm not sure that's the right solution, particularly since the other programming for Geek & Sundry doesn't have comparable details listed. It would stand out in that article. There is already precedent in the Programming section of the Geek & Sundry article to include links to details on the individual shows, where such details are available (for example, see TableTop_(web_series) and The_Guild_(web_series). In fact, that precedent (appending (web_series) to the article name) is a good argument for renaming Critical Role to Critical Role_(web_series) and keeping it listed on the Geek & Sundry page. I think this is a fair compromise to those who originally requested speedy deletion, which was in part based on the "commonality" of the show's name. As has been discussed above, the article has been improved; it is decently-written and reasonably-sourced (in particular, see the Wizards of the Coast official podcast link) and I don't really think there's a strong argument to outright delete it here if renaming it will make everyone happy. Again, I feel like the articles on comparably notable partnered Twitch streamers like Kripparrian should be our baseline for comparison. Given the amount of improvement on the article since the initial nomination for speedy deletion, I think it deserves to remain, maybe under a new disambiguated name. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper - speedy deletion is meant to be used when an article is obviously bad, completely unnotable, or clearly vandalism. While this article still has room for improvement, I do not believe it is any of these three things. Marstead (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per 5.147, KennefRiggles, and especially Marstead. Disambiguating the title would be beneficial. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 20:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - if anything, it is now better sourced than last I weighed in, and I don't find the previous arguments to be convincing. If there's really a concern that the title is confusing, Marstead's suggestion for disambiguation would be fine, but given the lack of other similarly titled or easily confused articles I don't know that it's necessary Darquis (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now as there's no better coverage convincingly better but feel welcome to restart when a better article is available. SwisterTwister talk 07:48, 14 November 2015 (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.