Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/13 Reasons Why

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. A redirect can be discussed/performed at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13 Reasons Why

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

Does this fall under the heading of "Too Soon"?
It is a tv show that isn't going to be aired for months. Kellymoat (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The title has been confirmed and is set to release in 2017. Many show pages exist for future/announced titles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robosalt (talk • contribs) 20:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a big fan of using "but other people are doing it" as an excuse. Kellymoat (talk) 20:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there has been enough coverage to justify the article's existence. I may edit the 13 Reasons Why page to remove anything that falls under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball," but I would NOT support deletion of the entire article. *Seen a Mike * 22:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to Thirteen Reasons Why. Hang googles (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability guidelines. It has a title/cast/director/writer/showrunners. This isn't just an article with a title and nothing more; there is actually a fair amount of info for an upcoming TV show. I don't really see any reason for it to be deleted at all. Somethingwickedly (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having a cast and producers isn't evidence of notability, but having reliable, independent sources is. Deadline and MTV News have covered this, so it passes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:34, 11 December 2016 (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.