Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Telly Time

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. ✗plicit 13:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Old Telly Time

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. While the article has references, they are so non-specific as to not be locatable. The urls go to general pages for the periodical publications and not specific articles, and the author has not given a specific day of publication, author, or title; only providing a year and name of publication. All of this wouldn't matter so much if a WP:BEFORE search had yielded sources, but I was unable to find anything. 4meter4 (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Australia. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that both the Geelong Advertiser newspaper and Art Almanac, The Australian Gallery Guide must have published either a news story about the book or a book review in 1982 when the book was published. References don't have to be online to be valid, which is good since I can't find a review or article on either publication's website. I couldn't find the book at the National Library of Australia or the Library of Congress in the United States. Since some magazines and services that do book reviews are hidden behind a paywall, it might be worthwhile for someone with access to those publications (either through the Wikipedia Library or through an academic library) could check for reviews online. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it certainly is plausible that these publications have reviews or some other type of reliable coverage. Typically I accept offline refs without issue, but not when they are so nondescript as to be non-locatable. Those utilizing offline sources or sources behind paywalls should provide basic information about those sources including the day and/or month of publication for weekly and/or monthly periodicals, page numbers, authors, and article titles. That's just standard practice that even elementary school students learn to do when writing their first research papers. Without sufficient details of this kind I don't think we can reasonably count these sources towards meeting the criteria at WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 14:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tried Google, Google Books, Google News, Google Scholar, JSTOR, Newspapers.com and the National Library of Australia's Trove archive. The last one confirms that the book exists and that there's a copy at Deakin Uni Library[1]. I'm unable to find even passing mentions of this book. pburka (talk) 19:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Please ping me if good sources are identified. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2023 (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.