- 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. Michig ( talk) 07:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
UFOs Declassified
- UFOs Declassified ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a new television series. There seems to be only one independent source that covers the subject in detail ( Toronto Star. Another source merely mentions the show in passing. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- All that a television series actually has to do to satisfy
WP:NMEDIA is to be reliably sourceable as airing on a national television network. We do not have any further criteria to distinguish notable nationally-aired television series from non-notable nationally-aired television series; once the condition of being sourceable as airing on a national television network has been satisfied — which it has been here, with a
Toronto Star article confirming that the show airs on
History already present in the article — the series is automatically an eligible topic for a Wikipedia article, and the only remaining recourse is to flag it for remaining maintenance issues such as needing further referencing improvement. Keep and flag for {{
refimprove}}.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree.
An essay written by a few editors should never trump a community endorsed guideline. At best, it can help to give examples of how to identify subjects that are likely notable, but we should still defer to
WP:GNG. Of course you are welcome to
propose that we elevate
WP:NMEDIA to a guideline, but until that happens, a program that has not been noted by at least a few reliable sources is only worth a few lines in another article such as
History (Canada).-
Mr
X 00:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- What community-endorsed guideline is
WP:NMEDIA contradicting? GNG doesn't trump subject-specific inclusion standards either — if a topic objectively passes a subject-specific inclusion test, then it's still includable whether the article is already in a GNG-satisfying state or not. For instance, if a politician who didn't already have an article gets elected to a state, provincial or federal legislature which puts them over
WP:NPOL, then the article is automatically creatable, and must be kept, as soon as one reliable source can be added which confirms that they've been declared elected — while of course we still want additional sourcing, and the article can be tagged accordingly, the fact that it doesn't already contain enough sourcing to satisfy GNG does not make it deletable, because the subject-specific test has rendered them automatically includable. If an actor who didn't already have an article wins a film or television award that puts them over
WP:NACTOR, then a new article is creatable, and must be kept, as soon as you can add one source which verifies that they won the award — it does not become deletable just because the creator didn't put more effort into sourcing it over GNG right off the top. And on and so forth. GNG exists as a corollary to subject-specific inclusion tests, not as a trump card that invalidates or undermines them — a topic can get into Wikipedia by satisfying either GNG or a subject-specific inclusion rule, and does not necessarily have to simultaneously pass both tests. Sure, the ideal "good-to-FA quality" state for any article would be that it passed both tests, but the question of basic includability requires only one of the two tests to be passed — GNG is not an extra condition that an article still has to satisfy to become keepable even if it's already satisfied another keepability test. Yes, this still needs additional sourcing — but the fact that it doesn't already have more than this doesn't make it deletable if it's satisfied a subject-specific inclusion rule, because Wikipedia is a work in progress and new sourcing can always be added at any time.
Bearcat (
talk) 02:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict)The first paragraph of the Programming section is an assertion without evidence of wide consensus, thus it's at odds with WP:GNG. However, the second paragraph brings it back into line with GNG by referring to the presence or absence of reliable sources. Your declaration that "All that a television series actually has to do to satisfy WP:NMEDIA is to be reliably sourceable as airing on a national television network." does contradict the expectation that notability is demonstrated by substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources, our bedrock test for notability. If this six-week-old program is actually notable, then it should not be difficult to find sources. Failing that, it should not have an article, because the article would consist of little more than plot summaries and air dates.- Mr X 02:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to claim that there is such a thing as "a subject-specific inclusion rule" and I am claiming that there is not. An essay simply does not accomplish that. GNG dovetails into WP:V, which is policy. Anyway, it seems we have very different interpretations of this, so it's probable not helpful to continue filling this page with debate, and I think we have both made our points. I suggest that this discussion should be taken up on WT:N to get wider input.- Mr X 02:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- What community-endorsed guideline is
WP:NMEDIA contradicting? GNG doesn't trump subject-specific inclusion standards either — if a topic objectively passes a subject-specific inclusion test, then it's still includable whether the article is already in a GNG-satisfying state or not. For instance, if a politician who didn't already have an article gets elected to a state, provincial or federal legislature which puts them over
WP:NPOL, then the article is automatically creatable, and must be kept, as soon as one reliable source can be added which confirms that they've been declared elected — while of course we still want additional sourcing, and the article can be tagged accordingly, the fact that it doesn't already contain enough sourcing to satisfy GNG does not make it deletable, because the subject-specific test has rendered them automatically includable. If an actor who didn't already have an article wins a film or television award that puts them over
WP:NACTOR, then a new article is creatable, and must be kept, as soon as you can add one source which verifies that they won the award — it does not become deletable just because the creator didn't put more effort into sourcing it over GNG right off the top. And on and so forth. GNG exists as a corollary to subject-specific inclusion tests, not as a trump card that invalidates or undermines them — a topic can get into Wikipedia by satisfying either GNG or a subject-specific inclusion rule, and does not necessarily have to simultaneously pass both tests. Sure, the ideal "good-to-FA quality" state for any article would be that it passed both tests, but the question of basic includability requires only one of the two tests to be passed — GNG is not an extra condition that an article still has to satisfy to become keepable even if it's already satisfied another keepability test. Yes, this still needs additional sourcing — but the fact that it doesn't already have more than this doesn't make it deletable if it's satisfied a subject-specific inclusion rule, because Wikipedia is a work in progress and new sourcing can always be added at any time.
Bearcat (
talk) 02:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree.
An essay written by a few editors should never trump a community endorsed guideline. At best, it can help to give examples of how to identify subjects that are likely notable, but we should still defer to
WP:GNG. Of course you are welcome to
propose that we elevate
WP:NMEDIA to a guideline, but until that happens, a program that has not been noted by at least a few reliable sources is only worth a few lines in another article such as
History (Canada).-
Mr
X 00:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Failing a particular inclusion criteria, like WP:GNG is not a cause for deletion. I'm inclined to agree with Bearcat that this should be included per WP:NMEDIA. T.C.Haliburton talk nerdy to me 16:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - I agree, it meets WP:NMEDIA and that should warrant inclusion. I've also added two sources but it really could do with more. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 16:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per previous arguments and per
common outcome that is "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." With this in mind I NAC'ed the discussion as "keep", but nom has requested it re-opened to
allow other editors to comment so that there is a clear consensus
. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 01:47, 13 March 2015 (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 Keep. Michig ( talk) 07:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
UFOs Declassified
- UFOs Declassified ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a new television series. There seems to be only one independent source that covers the subject in detail ( Toronto Star. Another source merely mentions the show in passing. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 13:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 13:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- All that a television series actually has to do to satisfy
WP:NMEDIA is to be reliably sourceable as airing on a national television network. We do not have any further criteria to distinguish notable nationally-aired television series from non-notable nationally-aired television series; once the condition of being sourceable as airing on a national television network has been satisfied — which it has been here, with a
Toronto Star article confirming that the show airs on
History already present in the article — the series is automatically an eligible topic for a Wikipedia article, and the only remaining recourse is to flag it for remaining maintenance issues such as needing further referencing improvement. Keep and flag for {{
refimprove}}.
Bearcat (
talk) 22:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree.
An essay written by a few editors should never trump a community endorsed guideline. At best, it can help to give examples of how to identify subjects that are likely notable, but we should still defer to
WP:GNG. Of course you are welcome to
propose that we elevate
WP:NMEDIA to a guideline, but until that happens, a program that has not been noted by at least a few reliable sources is only worth a few lines in another article such as
History (Canada).-
Mr
X 00:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- What community-endorsed guideline is
WP:NMEDIA contradicting? GNG doesn't trump subject-specific inclusion standards either — if a topic objectively passes a subject-specific inclusion test, then it's still includable whether the article is already in a GNG-satisfying state or not. For instance, if a politician who didn't already have an article gets elected to a state, provincial or federal legislature which puts them over
WP:NPOL, then the article is automatically creatable, and must be kept, as soon as one reliable source can be added which confirms that they've been declared elected — while of course we still want additional sourcing, and the article can be tagged accordingly, the fact that it doesn't already contain enough sourcing to satisfy GNG does not make it deletable, because the subject-specific test has rendered them automatically includable. If an actor who didn't already have an article wins a film or television award that puts them over
WP:NACTOR, then a new article is creatable, and must be kept, as soon as you can add one source which verifies that they won the award — it does not become deletable just because the creator didn't put more effort into sourcing it over GNG right off the top. And on and so forth. GNG exists as a corollary to subject-specific inclusion tests, not as a trump card that invalidates or undermines them — a topic can get into Wikipedia by satisfying either GNG or a subject-specific inclusion rule, and does not necessarily have to simultaneously pass both tests. Sure, the ideal "good-to-FA quality" state for any article would be that it passed both tests, but the question of basic includability requires only one of the two tests to be passed — GNG is not an extra condition that an article still has to satisfy to become keepable even if it's already satisfied another keepability test. Yes, this still needs additional sourcing — but the fact that it doesn't already have more than this doesn't make it deletable if it's satisfied a subject-specific inclusion rule, because Wikipedia is a work in progress and new sourcing can always be added at any time.
Bearcat (
talk) 02:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict)The first paragraph of the Programming section is an assertion without evidence of wide consensus, thus it's at odds with WP:GNG. However, the second paragraph brings it back into line with GNG by referring to the presence or absence of reliable sources. Your declaration that "All that a television series actually has to do to satisfy WP:NMEDIA is to be reliably sourceable as airing on a national television network." does contradict the expectation that notability is demonstrated by substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources, our bedrock test for notability. If this six-week-old program is actually notable, then it should not be difficult to find sources. Failing that, it should not have an article, because the article would consist of little more than plot summaries and air dates.- Mr X 02:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- You seem to claim that there is such a thing as "a subject-specific inclusion rule" and I am claiming that there is not. An essay simply does not accomplish that. GNG dovetails into WP:V, which is policy. Anyway, it seems we have very different interpretations of this, so it's probable not helpful to continue filling this page with debate, and I think we have both made our points. I suggest that this discussion should be taken up on WT:N to get wider input.- Mr X 02:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- What community-endorsed guideline is
WP:NMEDIA contradicting? GNG doesn't trump subject-specific inclusion standards either — if a topic objectively passes a subject-specific inclusion test, then it's still includable whether the article is already in a GNG-satisfying state or not. For instance, if a politician who didn't already have an article gets elected to a state, provincial or federal legislature which puts them over
WP:NPOL, then the article is automatically creatable, and must be kept, as soon as one reliable source can be added which confirms that they've been declared elected — while of course we still want additional sourcing, and the article can be tagged accordingly, the fact that it doesn't already contain enough sourcing to satisfy GNG does not make it deletable, because the subject-specific test has rendered them automatically includable. If an actor who didn't already have an article wins a film or television award that puts them over
WP:NACTOR, then a new article is creatable, and must be kept, as soon as you can add one source which verifies that they won the award — it does not become deletable just because the creator didn't put more effort into sourcing it over GNG right off the top. And on and so forth. GNG exists as a corollary to subject-specific inclusion tests, not as a trump card that invalidates or undermines them — a topic can get into Wikipedia by satisfying either GNG or a subject-specific inclusion rule, and does not necessarily have to simultaneously pass both tests. Sure, the ideal "good-to-FA quality" state for any article would be that it passed both tests, but the question of basic includability requires only one of the two tests to be passed — GNG is not an extra condition that an article still has to satisfy to become keepable even if it's already satisfied another keepability test. Yes, this still needs additional sourcing — but the fact that it doesn't already have more than this doesn't make it deletable if it's satisfied a subject-specific inclusion rule, because Wikipedia is a work in progress and new sourcing can always be added at any time.
Bearcat (
talk) 02:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree.
An essay written by a few editors should never trump a community endorsed guideline. At best, it can help to give examples of how to identify subjects that are likely notable, but we should still defer to
WP:GNG. Of course you are welcome to
propose that we elevate
WP:NMEDIA to a guideline, but until that happens, a program that has not been noted by at least a few reliable sources is only worth a few lines in another article such as
History (Canada).-
Mr
X 00:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Failing a particular inclusion criteria, like WP:GNG is not a cause for deletion. I'm inclined to agree with Bearcat that this should be included per WP:NMEDIA. T.C.Haliburton talk nerdy to me 16:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - I agree, it meets WP:NMEDIA and that should warrant inclusion. I've also added two sources but it really could do with more. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 16:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per previous arguments and per
common outcome that is "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." With this in mind I NAC'ed the discussion as "keep", but nom has requested it re-opened to
allow other editors to comment so that there is a clear consensus
. -- Sam Sailor Talk! 01:47, 13 March 2015 (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.