Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turf Season

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. Michig (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turf Season[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A non-notable show. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 17:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 20:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sure this passes GNG. The show hasn't even started and the only sourced elements in the article are unrelated to the show and are concerned more with the efforts being made by Nigerians to gain professional football contracts abroad. COuld be notable as the series progresses, but I don't think it is now. Fenix down (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello user:Fenix down, you do have a point. but how can we improve the article. we are all here to collaborate. I'm new here and I think the show is a great idea that's why i'm voting we edit and keep it. Kindly share your thoughts. Thanks. Regards. Donp07 (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should show reliable sources in the article that show discussion of the show per GNG. Per WP:TVSHOW, as (I presume) a nationally broadcast show, it is likely that the programme is notable, but such programmes are not inherently notable and need to show significant media coverage. As such, I feel that at the moment this programme is not notable, though it could be if you can show significant coverage by third parties prior to broadcast. The show may well become notable during or after its broadcast if it receives such coverage then. However, I feel at the moment this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Fenix down (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks user:Fenix down for your insightful comments and analysis. I'll certainly look forward to improving it soon. You've been very helpful so far. Thanks. Donp07 (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If the article is deleted and you think that it may become useful in future, you can request that an admin restores it to your userspace for you to work on as you try to show GNG. Once you feel you have achieved this you can move the article back to the mainspace or, if you want others opinion on it prior to this you can use WP:AFC. I'm not an expert on TV show notability, but am happy to opine on the usefulness of sources if you wish. It would be best to do that on my talk page though to avoid cluttering up this discussion! Fenix down (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2016 (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.