Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monday: Impossible

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. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monday: Impossible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Initial appearences suggest this is a TV series with a high-profile guest star list. Although the text does strive to point out there is no actual guest star involvement, their inclusion does seem to be an attempt to raise profile. The TV infobox is equally misleading, because this isn't even a TV series. Delving deeper, this appears to be nothing more than a non-notble website. Certainly, there is nothing in the reference list which asserts any notability - all but one of the references are press releases and the one that isn't is unrelated. Delete. I42 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following subpage:

List of Monday: Impossible guest stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete per WP:SOAPS and it do not cover A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. as outlined in WP:NOTFILM. Nsaa (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not a usual comment from me. I've just visited their website (and am rather wishing I hadn't). I'm none the wiser from it. Which wouldn't be relevant, except that it is the main external link. I discount all the references as plugging - apart from the fairuk one, which does nothing to establish notability for this outfit. It could be useful info for those liable to be pulled by the plods - sorry, stopped by the police. I am also discounting the alleged blog of the dog. It may in fact contain more accurate information than most human blogs do, but even so it is not independent sourcing. I've not managed yet to find any outside reliable references. I may try again - don't hold your breath. Peridon (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —94.196.163.252 (talk) 12:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Skipping over all of the plot summaries, this is just a web page with no claim to notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom. Sarilox (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2009 (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.