Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toma Lá, Dá Cá

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. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 19:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toma Lá, Dá Cá

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

Not notable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Ryan Vesey 05:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have a forest of references, images, youtubes, inevitably somewhere in there are sober serious newspaper articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the article is a plot written from the perspective of characters and full of WP:FANCRUFT. Does not prove to meet WP:N. Algébrico (talk) 20:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the article currently proves that it meets WP:N, but whether the subject actually meets WP:N. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be proved in the article (or here) what makes the subject (TV show) notable (that's what I'm talking about) per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES: What exactly makes it notable according to the sources. In any case, "Toma Lá, Dá Cá" is an expression in Portuguese that means "exchanging favors", that's why there are several sources for the expression (specially on articles about politics). Algébrico (talk) 23:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A more idiomatic translation would be "tit for tat". It's easy enough to filter out hits for the generic phrase with a search such as this, which finds loads of reliable sources specifically about this article's topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If there's a notability standard for TV shows, please point it out because I can't find it, but it seems like every TV show that lasted more than five episodes has a page. This show had 91 episodes. It's notable because enough people watched it to keep it on the air for 3 seasons.Listmeister (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it appears that this is a notable TV show, however it does need a major rework and cleanup, but that is not reason enough to delete the article. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:40, 14 April 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.