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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Secrets of a Small Town

Secrets of a Small Town (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Despite the fact that I just added sourcing to this article, I strongly feel it should be deleted as TV pilots are not inherently "notable" enough to merit articles in all but extraordinary cases (e.g. Aquaman (TV pilot)). In any case, all of the sourcing for this one are just passing mentions – i.e. it doesn't pass WP:GNG. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete Non-notable pilot that has no cult notability. Nate • ( chatter) 02:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep The show has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Television Pilots so that's clear evidence that the topic has encyclopedic notability. Moreover, it appears in the filmography of people like Kaley Cuoco and Angie Harmon. It would be disruptive to turn those entries into red links for no good reason. Andrew D. ( talk) 08:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • No, actually, it doesn't – things like that and Brooks & Marsh do not establish "notability": see this (addendum: see also WP:NFSOURCES). WP:GNG requires "significant coverage" – a listing in a single directory of all TV pilots certainly does not meet this. Further, WP:NMEDIA requires "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." – all of the sourcing used for this one are the latter. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 12:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I still don't agree with the nominator. An entry in an encyclopedia is prima facie evidence of notability per the WP:GNG. The nominator has created pages whose notability seems no stronger – pages such as I Killed My BFF or List of San Diego Trolley stations – and so his position is inconsistent. It seems easy to find more sources such as the Union-Tribune and so we are able to verify the essential facts of the topic. It's never going to be very big but it doesn't have to be. My !vote stands. Andrew D. ( talk) 18:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Yeah, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, right Andrew? -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:10, 23 March 2016 (UTC) reply
        • Indeed, as WP:OSE states "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides". Notice that the page is one of many Unaired television pilots which all have separate pages, just like this. My position also rests on WP:GNG and the policy WP:PRESERVE and so we see that there is no case for deletion. Andrew D. ( talk) 08:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Fails GNG. The provided web references are, as already said, passing mentions. As for the mentioned Encyclopedia of Television Pilots, said to provide "clear evidence that the topic has encyclopedic notability", the entries in that book appear to be two or three sentences summing up the premise of a show, sometimes with a cast list. That's not nearly enough to qualify as significant coverage, and the book containing the world "encyclopedia" in the title does not change that. That the work appears in a list in other articles, and deleting it would lead to a list entry with no wikilink, is not a good reason to keep something around if it's judged not to be notable, and the idea that doing so could be "disruptive" is, frankly, risible. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 20:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC) reply
• Delete as this could be useful for historical uses but considering it will never air, it's unlikely for any better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 29 March 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.