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. Sources have been confirmed to exist. TPH, I'm not going to tone police you, but this sub-conversation is not productive. You're welcome to add the sources yourself as well. Star Mississippi 02:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Taking On Tyson

Taking On Tyson (  | 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)

Deprodded with sources, but they don't seem to be much in the way of WP:SIGCOV. Searches found only false positives or TV Guide listings. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 21:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 21:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep Sources in article are sufficient enough to pass WP:GNG at the very least. DonaldD23 talk to me 21:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  Guess what, more press releases. The fact that the Associated Press will write about literally TV show if you throw enough money their way is not an indicator of notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 22:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Not press releases. Again, press releases are written by the makers, not independent news agencies. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply

    They were written because the maker of the show told them to write X words gushing about how good the show is. That's still a primary source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 22:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply

    Where is your proof that these are paid promotions? Provide facts to support these statements. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply

    "blah blah blah ASSOCIATED PRESS" is all the proof I need. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 22:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply

    Purely your opinion. No different than conservatives in the US saying CNN isn't true and liberals in the US saying FOX News isn't true. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  You think the AP is a paid promotion agency? matt91486 ( talk) 16:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

• Keep -- sources meet the GNG an are not, as mistakenly argued above, press releases but are secondary coverage. matt91486 ( talk) 16:08, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  Additional sources on page 2 of google results: [1], [2], [3], [4]. This well exceeds the GNG. Also, for the record, a press release about the show does in fact exist, and it can be found here: [5]. matt91486 ( talk) 16:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  And of course, these sources will just magically add themselves to the article, right? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 16:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  A. I added one to the article before posting them. B. You know very well that AfD is about demonstrating sources *exist*. This has done so. matt91486 ( talk) 16:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  I see the same cycle every time:

  1. Article is nominated for deletion
  2. Several people in AFD find sources
  3. AFD closes as keep
  4. No one ever adds sources to article; article is still an unsourced stub 15 years later
  5. Lather rinse repeat

  Break the cycle. Add the damn sources yourself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 19:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  If you want to reform the entire AfD process, you are welcome to try to initiate that elsewhere, but this is not the appropriate place for that discussion. AfD is about demonstrating the subject of the article is notable. These sources easily do that. matt91486 ( talk) 22:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  Then why aren't they in the article, hmm? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 22:52, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  perhaps the cycle could be broken within the policies and guidelines, respecting WP:NEXIST, instead of trying to overrule consensus by deleting articles that are WP:N. Deletion is not cleanup. There are many ways to improve articles, including various cleanup mechanisms and fixing it yourself. We are all wasting a lot of time and energy here. Deleting the crap is very important, but spending time nominating, defending, and arguing over articles that are notable for cleanup reasons is a huge negative to the project. Jacona ( talk) 11:44, 30 May 2022 (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.