Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Got to Dance (Australia)

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. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got to Dance (Australia)

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

Besides lacking any content , there seems to be no third party reliable multiple sourcing for this article other then Daily Star tabloid and forums/blogs. I would have thought that this should have been a speedy somehow. Planetary ChaosTalk 13:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A Google search shows it as an actual program. I don't live in Australia so I don't know. However, there is very, very little activity on this article, no substance, no references and very few articles linking to it. If this show truly does exist, this article needs to be fleshed out. --Fightingirish (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merely existing is not sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Future show that has yet to gain enough coverage. Probably will, given time but WP:CRYSTAL. Rubiscous (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 15:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as crystalballery. No sources as far as I can see, and there is a lot of scope for the programme to never get made. Article can and should be recreated if and when reliable sources from independent parties present themselves. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:17, 1 January 2012 (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.