Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portal (TV series)

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 merge to List of programs broadcast by G4. J04n(talk page) 16:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Portal (TV series)[edit]

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

This TV show appears to be non-notable and fails WP:GNG. Couldn't find sufficient reliable sources on a search. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I personally remember watching it, but in terms of Wikipedia it's not notable and only supported by a single source. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to G4 (U.S. TV channel) The show happened, we can document that, but I don't think it can have its own standalone page. A merge is better. (I would suspect a lot of G4 programs lack significant coverage, and this might be where a brief expanded List of programs broadcast by G4 (with 2-3 lines for each program) could be given. --Masem (t) 22:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am very skeptical of the goodwill of the nominator and votes above, all three of which have come here from a very related discussion at Talk:Portal (series)#Requested move 12 February 2018 and seem to be motivated against this article primarily as a way to affect the outcome of that move discussion. On principle, as I'm also coming from that RM, I'm not going to vote, but I don't see any reason to think this article fails our WP:NOTABILITY guideline as a series which ran for two seasons on an established network. The article has been here since 2005 with no prior AfD. Sources can be fixed, and the article can be improved. I ask future voters and the closer investigate the motivations of the nom and voters coming from that RM. -- Netoholic @ 00:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a straight up assumption of bad faith/ad hominem and not proper Wikipedia behavior. I am not sure what's wrong with seeing an article in another discussion and calling out a clear and obvious problem. The fact that it lasted since 2005 was more because nobody cared than because it was notable. In my opinion the nominator should have checked to see if the article was notable before proposing a move instead of assuming as such._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be improved sure, but where are the sources that would help do so? WP:N says "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this passes WP:NTV, mentioned in Guinness World Records 2017 Gamer's Edition, and has only been brought here because of Talk:Portal (series) where there is a discussion about the correct dab being (video game series). Because video game editors currently have a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to claim "series" for video games, therefore competing TV series articles risk AfD. This is not the way to help readers by zapping TV series which share the names of video games. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Any more sources outside of a Guinness World Records? Even if Portal (series) goes back to Portal (video game series), this article would still lack sources and overall notability. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there is a local consensus, then embarking on a one man/woman crusade to nominate every article in existence for a move is not the proper procedure and is a WP:DISRUPTIVE example of WP:POINT. If we reach a consensus at WP:VPP, we can get a bot to do it instead of arguing about it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion hasn't gone to Village Pump as far as I know. If it does please ping me because I don't watch it. Re above still pass WP:NTV. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, I don't see how you can claim bad faith while openly scheming like this about your motives for all the move duscussions. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Lack of sourcing and content for a short-lived show to warrant a stand-alone article. Sergecross73 msg me 01:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clearly meets notability guideline. Seems WP:POINTy in response to Talk:Portal (series)#Requested move 12 February 2018. --wooden superman 12:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly how exactly? There certainly aren't enough sources demonstrated yet. Right now you are just saying WP:ITSNOTABLE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NTV: "A [...] television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience". It was also in the Guinness Book of Records. --wooden superman 11:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key word is "likely" not "guaranteed to be notable". That doesn't automatically give every TV program notability._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it somewhat shifts the burden of proof onto those that would want it deleted to demonstrate that it isn't worthy of inclusion. Despite the show being cancelled 14 years ago, and a title which hinders a lot of search methods, I've found two new sources just during the span of this discussion (a magazine and a book) which cite the television show as an important early example of the merger of TV and video games. I have no doubt that more exist, but that's already two more sources than I think were needed to establish baseline notability as cited in WP:NTV. -- Netoholic @ 21:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To judge new sources mentioned in Netoholic's last comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 05:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google on Portal Meinstein -Wikipedia -Wikia still gave me over 12,000 ghits, so in the face of no evidence to the contrary, clearly notable. (And I think it's up to those proposing deletion to examine and in need challenge the sources now added to the article, and otherwise we assume good faith of a very competent editor and accept them.) Disclosure: I also came here because of a link from the RM mentioned above. Andrewa (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:GHITS. Sergecross73 msg me 01:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point (although I'm very familiar with that entire essay, and it makes some good points).

But we now have five reverences in reliable sources, so the notability guideline is satisfied. The ghit count is relevant in deciding where else to look and what to expect. It's the reliable sources (or lack of them) that should decide the issue. And I wanted to put it more gently, but just how hard have you and others looked for these sources? The ghit count suggests that it would be wise to look. That's all.

(It will of course be up to the closer to determine whether my !vote is relevant.) Andrewa (talk) 06:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to G4 List-of shows At the time of its airing being the 'most popular' show on G4 (pre-TechTV merger) was a crapshoot of either just being around 10,000 viewers, or unmonitored by Nielsen because of being under that number. Basically it's equivalent to what a YouTube channel would be; maybe good enough for its own article, but all we have is generic titles and loglines, and several unsourced claims. Nate • (chatter) 02:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Seems likely notable to me. But, the article doesn't make a great indication of notablity. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to G4 List-of shows - like most of the other G4 shows before the merger with TechTV, this lacks the sourcing needed to maintain separate notability outside of being a G4 show. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2018 (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.