Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terror (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 keep. Tone 20:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terror (TV series)

[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)

No coverage outside of winning an award. Declined speedy. wumbolo ^^^ 14:45, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, this needs more sources than it has before it can be considered a good article. But winning a Canadian Screen Award does exactly the same thing for a Canadian TV show that winning an Emmy Award does for an American one — it is, right on its face, a hard clean pass of our notability criteria for television shows. Bearcat (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Emmies have been awarded for almost twelve times longer than this Canadian award. wumbolo ^^^ 14:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the ability of a film or television award to make its winning programs notable is not a question of how long the award has been presented — if it's the top level film or television award in its country, then it automatically clinches the notability of its winners and nominees regardless of whether it's been around for 300 years or one. Secondly, the Canadian Screen Awards' name is the only part of it that's only six years old — it's merely a recent renaming of an award that's been around since 1949 under other names. The Emmys are older than the CSAs by a whopping three months, not years or decades — the only difference is that the CSAs have changed their name a couple of times in the intervening decades, while the Emmys haven't. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Matt14451 (talk) 21:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Correct me if I'm wrong, but winning an Emmy or any other award has nothing to do with whether a TV show is notable. Not seeing any such criterion in WP:NTV. It doesn't have a rotten tomatoes entry either, so it's hard to find coverage on this without just finding stuff on "The Terror". – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 22:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, winning an Emmy or a CSA is a valid claim of notability for a TV show, in exactly the same way that an Academy Award or a CSA is a valid notability claim for a film. The TV subsection doesn't do a good job at the moment of explicitly respecifying that, I'll grant, but the general notability criteria for media as a whole, which TV is a subsection of rather than a standalone document, make it quite clear that award-winningness is a hard notability pass for media content. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't seem to be explicit policy then, and I'd rather it not be. Good sourcing is a prerequisite to writing a good article. Even if this TV show won an award, if there's no sources, there's no article to write. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NMEDIA makes it explicit; the TV subsection not making a special point of restating the overall NMEDIA principle that was already stated up top is not the same thing as the rule not being explicit. And while I acknowledged in my initial comment that the article needs more sources than it has before it can be considered a genuinely good article, it already has enough sources that a deletion argument based on "lack of sourcing" is already in clear contradiction of the facts. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and which sources are those? – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 19:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The three sources that are already in the article, perhaps? Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I asked was because the current sources aren't sufficient. The first source is about Vice and only mentions the show in passing, the second source is from the people who make the show, and the last one is another passing mention in an article about awards. Your condescension is unnecessary. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 20:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the existing sources were brilliant ones (I explicitly said, in fact, that the article needs more sources before it can be considered good) — but they are enough to verify that (a) the information in the article is accurate, and (b) the show has a clean pass of a hard notability criterion. We have many articles about Oscar-nominated films and Emmy-award winning TV programs that cite fewer sources than this already does. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CBC reporting on the CSA win is reliable third party coverage as per WP:GNG regardless of whether the award itself confers notability. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. wumbolo ^^^ 15:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious how you think the CBC doesn't count as a reliable source, but there's also a ref to the Montreal Gazette. Multiple independent major national media reports = WP:GNG satisfied. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources mention it only once, and say only a handful of words about it. WP:GNG isn't satisfied by minor mentions. wumbolo ^^^ 16:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind also that even if you believe those sources fulfill GNG (they don't, the Montreal gazette article isn't about this TV series at all), if the coverage is not WP:SUSTAINED then it still falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Remember that passing GNG does not automatically mean keep. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 17:26, 10 October 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.