Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dumping Ground

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. Arguement that sources might become available in the future is acknowledgment that they don't exist yet, hence failing notability per remaining comments. KTC (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dumping Ground

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Non-notable TV show. It may become notable once it is released, but right now it has no significant coverage outside of the BBC, which is producing it. Skrelk (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: More information and reception will be released which is today. It is also part of the Tracy Beaker franchise which is quite notable.--Anna2123456789 (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Was released today. More information is likely to be released soon as mentioned above. 94.173.99.52 (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not much reliable sources. "More information is likely to be released" is just WP:CRYSTALBALL. There's not much reliable sources, it has already been released - it should be deleted. Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 21:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The programme just started today. What can you expect in a matter of hours when a programme has just started. Give it chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.16.102 (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I expect it to have adequate referencing. Note the article can be recreated after more references become available (although I kinda doubt that'll happen...) Satellizer ^{talk contribs} 09:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some new references so it totals up to 7 which is the equivalent to the Tracy Beaker Returns article --Anna2123456789 (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the number of references, it's the source of the references. Significant, non-trivial references in credible secondary sources. Anything ending .blogspot.com is not a credible secondary source. Skrelk (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Three of those seven references are on the BBC's web site. Since "The Dumping Ground" is broadcast by the BBC, these are not independent sources. Two references are on blogspot, which is not a reliable source. The seventh is on a site called www.combom.co.uk, which appears to be a blog, and is probably not a reliable source, and in any case it is only a two-sentence mention of "The Dumping Ground". I quite understand why a new user, seeing that an article is likely to be deleted because of a lack of references, is likely to think that just adding a lot of references will solve the problem, but it won't. If you want the article kept, then I suggest reading the guidelines to notability and reliable sources, to see what kind of thing is needed. Two good references are likely to do the trick, while 200 references of the sort that are in the article now will not. My guess is that the subject probably is notable enough for the article to stay, but I have not yet seen any sources that show that it is. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comment beginning "I quite understand why a new user..." was based on the assumption that only a new user would make that mistake about the need for sources. However, I now see that Anna2123456789 has been here for nearly four years, and has made well over 400 edits. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Both the "keep" arguments amount to saying "there is not much coverage yet, because this is new". Anyone familiar with Wikipedia's notability criteria will realise that this is not an argument for keeping: it is an argument for deleting. Basically, Wikipedia's main notability criterion is that if there is not much coverage in reliable sources, then it is not notable. Why there is not much coverage in reliable sources is irrelevant: if there is not yet much coverage, then the topic is not yet notable, and so we should not yet have an article. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2013 (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.