- 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 no consensus. I concur with User:Bungle's disapproval of the nomination being relisted by the original nominator; this is not appropriate and a WP:MINNOW is hereby issued. Stifle ( talk) 13:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Can You Duet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm self-deprodding for a broader look at the sourcing here. In the article's current state, all but one of the sources is from CMT, the network that aired the show. My attempts to dig deeper for sources were met with very little:
- This is an article from Billboard about the show's second season, and is the only good quality third-party coverage I could find.
- This Billboard article also mentions the show, but only dedicates about a paragraph or so about it in the greater context of "music based reality shows".
- This is a press release announcing the show's host.
- This is an article from Music Row which documents the Season 2 winner Steel Magnolia signing a record contract. However, it's more about the duo itself and only mentions the show in passing.
- This is a press release that's more about Naomi Judd than about the show.
- Reality TV World does not appear to be an RS, as I see no credits for editors.
- Futon Critic is just reprinting a CMT press release.
- This is a listicle from The Boot that mostly quote-mines articles about some of the finalists.
- This is a reprint of a People article stating that one of the hosts later married one of the contestants.
Everything else I found was just articles about people who were on the show, such as this article on Joey + Rory that mentions their placing third as just one of the many footnotes in their easily WP:NMUSIC-passing career.
Google News doesn't turn up any results whatsoever for "Can You Duet" + "Lance Smith". I even checked The Tennesseean on Newspapers.com and got nothing but TV listings and reprints of press releases. The fact that not even the Nashville newspaper gave a rat's ass about a country music TV show indicates that it just wasn't worth writing about.
In short, it seems that coverage of the show is nowhere to be seen; even if several of the acts it produced happened to be notable, WP:NOTINHERITED is in play. If anything, artists like Joey + Rory and Steel Magnolia seem to pass WP:NMUSIC in spite of their being finalists on the show. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There were several fairly notable acts to come from the show and it ran for 2 seasons on the prominent TV station, so I don't see why it wouldn't be notable enough to keep. Maybe it needs a few more sources added, but deletion? Nah. CloversMallRat ( talk) 14:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ CloversMallRat: Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The acts that placed on it would still be notable even if the show didn't exist. And what sources do you want me to add? The ones that don't exist, or the ones that aren't even about the show? I just proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that there are no sources for this show. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 16:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- It got some coverage at the time from TelevisionWeek ( [1]) and Variety ( [2] [3]). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is Variety reporting on the show being renewed considered sufficient coverage? It seems pretty routine/press-release-y to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Marginal, but Variety probably pushes it over the edge – my general view is: if it makes it into Variety or THR (or even Deadline), then it is likely notable enough to cover in Wikipedia. I would certainly add Sammi Brie's references to the article. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
17:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'll note here that TelevisionWeek was a publication of comparable notability in its time (I recently revived its Wikipedia article after PROD in 2015; the Internet Archive has almost every issue in its 27-year run). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, the current article relies way too much on Primary sources. But adding in Sammi Brie's sources, with maybe a few that TenPoundHammer lists above (esp. #2), and it probably just barely clears WP:GNG. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @
Sammi Brie: @
IJBall: good work, both of you. If one of you wants to add those, I'll withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
17:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd let this AfD play out. Even with these refs, this is a marginal case. There may be some "weak delete" votes on this. (And, note, I'm not voting, just commenting – this is borderline enough that I don't have a strong feeling: you can argue this one either way, as "significant coverage" is questionable here.) Best to let the AfD process go to completion, to come to a consensus. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Some of the coverage already dismissed is actually reasonable (e.g., the Billboard piece); Billboard covered it more than once ( [4]) and there are other sources in addition ( [5], [6], [7]). Chubbles ( talk) 03:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ Chubbles: I think only the American Songwriter coverage is valid. Idolator doesn't seem to be a reliable source, and either way, it's just an arbitrary ranking on a listicle. The Hollywood Reporter source is just a reprint of a press release. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I guess our mileages vary as to the level of skepticism we need to have about the journalistic integrity of the trade papers here. Regardless,
WP:CORP is not the standard of notability for this article, and the amount now uncovered collectively clears anything I'd expect from a GNG challenge.
Chubbles (
talk)
03:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @
Chubbles: Press releases are still
primary sources and not a factor of notability. And I still see no reason to believe that "Idolator" is a reputable source, especially because
they admit to a "partnership deal" which means that all of their content is promotional in nature and therefore also a primary source. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
05:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Idolator's contact page says that they advertise and actively court advertising partnerships, which most websites (and newspapers and magazines) do. That in itself doesn't indicate they are a promotion-only website. I do see that they don't have a description of an editorial team that states much in the way of journalistic independence, and a casual look through their album reviews does reveal to me that they are pretty relentlessly positive about everything they cover. I'm willing to grant it may not be a terribly valuable source; however, losing it doesn't make or break the GNG case here. Chubbles ( talk) 11:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @
Chubbles: Press releases are still
primary sources and not a factor of notability. And I still see no reason to believe that "Idolator" is a reputable source, especially because
they admit to a "partnership deal" which means that all of their content is promotional in nature and therefore also a primary source. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
05:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis needed on the sources provided by Chubbles and Sammi Brie
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: @
TenPoundHammer: Just a courtesy notice, but it's generally not appropriate for someone involved to relist an afd as their decision could be biased by their participation. In this case you're the nominator, so you relisting is a little curious and could be seen as a way to avoid a "keep" outcome, but still it's typical to let another uninvolved editor make that decision. You also forgot to comment out the afd on the original dated discussion page, so I have done that.
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
20:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I relisted because I wanted to see further analysis of the sources brought up, and in ten days, no one has seen fit to say anything either way. If this closes as keep, then I don't mind. I just don't want it to close as "no consensus" because everyone just clammed up. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
05:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- My point is, as the nominator, that is not for you to decide whether it is relisted or closed. This is true for any editor who !votes or contributes to the discussion but more-so if the editor initiated it. I am not saying a relist is inappropriate (I would have relisted it) but it should be done by someone who isn't involved, because a relist could be seen as a way, in some scenarios, to avoid a particular outcome (especially as both !votes so far are contrary to your own position). Bungle ( talk • contribs) 09:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I relisted because I wanted to see further analysis of the sources brought up, and in ten days, no one has seen fit to say anything either way. If this closes as keep, then I don't mind. I just don't want it to close as "no consensus" because everyone just clammed up. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
05:25, 15 April 2022 (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.
- 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 no consensus. I concur with User:Bungle's disapproval of the nomination being relisted by the original nominator; this is not appropriate and a WP:MINNOW is hereby issued. Stifle ( talk) 13:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Can You Duet ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm self-deprodding for a broader look at the sourcing here. In the article's current state, all but one of the sources is from CMT, the network that aired the show. My attempts to dig deeper for sources were met with very little:
- This is an article from Billboard about the show's second season, and is the only good quality third-party coverage I could find.
- This Billboard article also mentions the show, but only dedicates about a paragraph or so about it in the greater context of "music based reality shows".
- This is a press release announcing the show's host.
- This is an article from Music Row which documents the Season 2 winner Steel Magnolia signing a record contract. However, it's more about the duo itself and only mentions the show in passing.
- This is a press release that's more about Naomi Judd than about the show.
- Reality TV World does not appear to be an RS, as I see no credits for editors.
- Futon Critic is just reprinting a CMT press release.
- This is a listicle from The Boot that mostly quote-mines articles about some of the finalists.
- This is a reprint of a People article stating that one of the hosts later married one of the contestants.
Everything else I found was just articles about people who were on the show, such as this article on Joey + Rory that mentions their placing third as just one of the many footnotes in their easily WP:NMUSIC-passing career.
Google News doesn't turn up any results whatsoever for "Can You Duet" + "Lance Smith". I even checked The Tennesseean on Newspapers.com and got nothing but TV listings and reprints of press releases. The fact that not even the Nashville newspaper gave a rat's ass about a country music TV show indicates that it just wasn't worth writing about.
In short, it seems that coverage of the show is nowhere to be seen; even if several of the acts it produced happened to be notable, WP:NOTINHERITED is in play. If anything, artists like Joey + Rory and Steel Magnolia seem to pass WP:NMUSIC in spite of their being finalists on the show. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep There were several fairly notable acts to come from the show and it ran for 2 seasons on the prominent TV station, so I don't see why it wouldn't be notable enough to keep. Maybe it needs a few more sources added, but deletion? Nah. CloversMallRat ( talk) 14:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ CloversMallRat: Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The acts that placed on it would still be notable even if the show didn't exist. And what sources do you want me to add? The ones that don't exist, or the ones that aren't even about the show? I just proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that there are no sources for this show. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 16:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- It got some coverage at the time from TelevisionWeek ( [1]) and Variety ( [2] [3]). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Is Variety reporting on the show being renewed considered sufficient coverage? It seems pretty routine/press-release-y to me. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Marginal, but Variety probably pushes it over the edge – my general view is: if it makes it into Variety or THR (or even Deadline), then it is likely notable enough to cover in Wikipedia. I would certainly add Sammi Brie's references to the article. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
17:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'll note here that TelevisionWeek was a publication of comparable notability in its time (I recently revived its Wikipedia article after PROD in 2015; the Internet Archive has almost every issue in its 27-year run). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, the current article relies way too much on Primary sources. But adding in Sammi Brie's sources, with maybe a few that TenPoundHammer lists above (esp. #2), and it probably just barely clears WP:GNG. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:51, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- @
Sammi Brie: @
IJBall: good work, both of you. If one of you wants to add those, I'll withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
17:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd let this AfD play out. Even with these refs, this is a marginal case. There may be some "weak delete" votes on this. (And, note, I'm not voting, just commenting – this is borderline enough that I don't have a strong feeling: you can argue this one either way, as "significant coverage" is questionable here.) Best to let the AfD process go to completion, to come to a consensus. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Some of the coverage already dismissed is actually reasonable (e.g., the Billboard piece); Billboard covered it more than once ( [4]) and there are other sources in addition ( [5], [6], [7]). Chubbles ( talk) 03:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @ Chubbles: I think only the American Songwriter coverage is valid. Idolator doesn't seem to be a reliable source, and either way, it's just an arbitrary ranking on a listicle. The Hollywood Reporter source is just a reprint of a press release. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 03:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I guess our mileages vary as to the level of skepticism we need to have about the journalistic integrity of the trade papers here. Regardless,
WP:CORP is not the standard of notability for this article, and the amount now uncovered collectively clears anything I'd expect from a GNG challenge.
Chubbles (
talk)
03:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @
Chubbles: Press releases are still
primary sources and not a factor of notability. And I still see no reason to believe that "Idolator" is a reputable source, especially because
they admit to a "partnership deal" which means that all of their content is promotional in nature and therefore also a primary source. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
05:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Idolator's contact page says that they advertise and actively court advertising partnerships, which most websites (and newspapers and magazines) do. That in itself doesn't indicate they are a promotion-only website. I do see that they don't have a description of an editorial team that states much in the way of journalistic independence, and a casual look through their album reviews does reveal to me that they are pretty relentlessly positive about everything they cover. I'm willing to grant it may not be a terribly valuable source; however, losing it doesn't make or break the GNG case here. Chubbles ( talk) 11:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- @
Chubbles: Press releases are still
primary sources and not a factor of notability. And I still see no reason to believe that "Idolator" is a reputable source, especially because
they admit to a "partnership deal" which means that all of their content is promotional in nature and therefore also a primary source. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
05:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 01:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further analysis needed on the sources provided by Chubbles and Sammi Brie
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 02:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: @
TenPoundHammer: Just a courtesy notice, but it's generally not appropriate for someone involved to relist an afd as their decision could be biased by their participation. In this case you're the nominator, so you relisting is a little curious and could be seen as a way to avoid a "keep" outcome, but still it's typical to let another uninvolved editor make that decision. You also forgot to comment out the afd on the original dated discussion page, so I have done that.
Bungle (
talk •
contribs)
20:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I relisted because I wanted to see further analysis of the sources brought up, and in ten days, no one has seen fit to say anything either way. If this closes as keep, then I don't mind. I just don't want it to close as "no consensus" because everyone just clammed up. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
05:25, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- My point is, as the nominator, that is not for you to decide whether it is relisted or closed. This is true for any editor who !votes or contributes to the discussion but more-so if the editor initiated it. I am not saying a relist is inappropriate (I would have relisted it) but it should be done by someone who isn't involved, because a relist could be seen as a way, in some scenarios, to avoid a particular outcome (especially as both !votes so far are contrary to your own position). Bungle ( talk • contribs) 09:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I relisted because I wanted to see further analysis of the sources brought up, and in ten days, no one has seen fit to say anything either way. If this closes as keep, then I don't mind. I just don't want it to close as "no consensus" because everyone just clammed up. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
05:25, 15 April 2022 (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.