Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal X (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 move to Draft:Animal X (TV series). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animal X (TV series)[edit]

[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)

Despite claims of airing in multiple countries, I couldn't find any sources. No matter what keywords I tried, I got only false positives on ProQuest. Everything already in the article is either WP:PRIMARY or tangential. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Paranormal. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I oppose the nomination for deletion. This article has been heavily edited in a time when I was legally blind and unable to keep things from going from decent to bad. I have sight in one eye now and can help you find sources. As to claims that it has aired in hundreds of countries, well, that seems a bit much. I'd like some time to try to bring this up to a better quality article. I watched the episodes that aired on Discovery's Animal Plant and they were entertaining for what they were. They were certainly a huge cut above the Cryptid shows that are the norm in present. Now that the show streams for free on Tubi, almost anyone can watch it. I volunteer to work on this and if given a list of requested changes and/or concerns, I will do what I can to help. LiPollis (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the show in any degree. As I said, I dug all over newspapers.com and ProQuest and found only false positives for unrelated content with the phrase "Animal X" in it. If you or another editor is unable to find reliable source coverage that I couldn't, then that would save the article. Whether or not you liked the show is immaterial; I like the announcing work of Randy West and still had to nominate his article for deletion because I couldn't find sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need reliable sourcing on articles. Watching something and then writing an article from your watching it is not the way we get reliable sources. Wikipedia is not based on primary sources and original research, which is what we have if you build the article on your watching the show.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I did NOT state that I wrote the article based upon watching the series. That is an inference. I merely stated that I had actually watched the series during its initial US run in order to be informative. In comparison to today's low-quality shows "reality" shows featuring self-described amateur "Squatchers" and such, this show was quite different and far more professionally produced. I invite you to stream a few episodes since you can do so for free. In the years since I began having serious eye-sight trouble, large parts of the article have been altered and references lost. What is the huge hurry to delete? I have told you that I am willing to work on this article now that I have enough sight restored to do the research. The article was part of a now-defunct wiki-Project. I believe it can be greatly improved. I am offering to help. The more time I spend discussing this, the less time I can spend sourcing things. Give me a list and I can get to work. Thanks for your timeLiPollis (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  All of the sources added are either WP:PRIMARY -- that is, originating from the show, its network, or its distributor. The only exception is an obituary on one person involved in the show, which only mentions it very briefly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that. In the two days I have had to search for new sources, I have been trying to verify claims about distribution in all those countries mentioned by other editors and it's problematic for a show of this age. Why not help me? The complaints about the article seem to be about sources and not notability and therefore this is something that could have been better dealt with on the article's talk page. I am not particularly enamored with this article but it does cover an early attempt to cover Crytpid inquiry with some basic science included as opposed to a bunch of people running around the woods asking each other if they heard a noise. A number of those types of shows have run for 100 or more episodes, much to my dismay. Part of the problem I am encountering is the changes in the show's name and the less than unique nature of the names confounds search engines of various types and makes trying to sort through sources a long and tiresome process. I have looked at the activity of past contributors and contributors to the project that began work on this and similar articles and it seems most are inactive. I'm working on this but I cannot fix it in a matter of days all on my own. Thank you for your feedback. LiPollis (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    
    I already did try a search on multiple platforms. "Storyteller Productions" + "Animal X" gives me no results whatsoever on Google News, newspapers.com, and ProQuest. There's literally nothing to help you with. The IMDb entry is completely blank. Even regular Google gives me only IMDb and sites that mirror its content. There's just nothing out there. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for your reply. The IMDB page isn't exactly blank, but a change in name from Storyteller Productions to Storyteller Media Group may not be helping matters. That and the fact that it has erroneous info. Here is a link to the page that lists other productions by the company and you may notice some similarities in content. Storyteller Media Group seems to be interested in both real or purported animals. Storyteller Media Group (Sorted by Popularity Ascending). There is also info available about the producer. The long time lapse between its first season airing in Australia and it's revival on Animal Planet is another problem. The dates complicate searches as does the common name of Animal plus the letter X. It is frustrating. Back when I was first editing, I wasn't careful to cache reviews in the Internet Archive, so those are just gone. I'm gonna give it some more time and clean out what I can. I've avoided deleting things just yet but the time has come. If I can't get some reviews or anything better than Internet rankings and IMDB popularity ratings, I will throw up my hands. Syndicated shows such as this with complicated production histories present unique problems. I do think the series is notable but I truly DO respect your concerns. Again, I thank you for your time, your reply and your interest in improving the article if possible. LiPollis (talk) 06:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: An editor is expressing a good faith desire to improve the article with the belief that improvements can be made and satisfy WP:N. This can be done in Draft space outside the time constraints of AfD. - 2pou (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify ~~Delete~~ - Nothing in Newspapers, despite many hits for proof of the shows existence being it is named in TV guides as to what time and day it was aired, like this. Nothing on Wayback. Nothing on Proquest. Nothing on Google. Comments made about watching the show and "Give me time and I will find sources" are not valid reasons for keeping, as in my view they amount to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:SOURCESEXIST. There is no significant coverage by multiple, reliable, independent, secondary sources. Hence the article fails WP:GNG and no amount of editing can overcome its lack of notability. Wikipedia does not have an article on every television show in existence, I vote keep on any show I can see meets WP:GNG, but this one simply can not meet this guideline and so ought to be deleted. MaxnaCarter (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to draftify based on sources located via EBSCO, a database I did not check. MaxnaCarter (talk) 05:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - More sourcing for the revival/spin off Animal X: Natural Mystery Unit, probably due to it being more recent and not airing in 90s where online sources may be scarce. Sydney Morning Herald with follow up in Herald again, Marshall News Messenger, Miraudo, Nadia (May 2, 2004). A matter of hit and myth. The Sunday Times via EBSCO. December 14, 2004. Film team hunts big cat. Hills Shire Times. p. 017. via Newsbank. Short blerb[1] announcing deal to make 3rd season. Small bit of coverage in Business News(AU). Obviously no point to delete main article and make new article for the spinoff. Current title covers both. More sourcing can be found while in draft state, but I think we have enough coverage on the 2004 show, and can use some time to sourcing for the original show, which is main reason I say draft for now rather than keep. If anyone can find more non primary sourcing for original two seasons, I would change to keep. Best I found was a quote from Western Morning News (November 2000, p.9) in this paper[2]. People with access to British/Australian sources would be helpful. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You found all those on EBSCO? Thanks, I will add this resource to my list of databases to check. Changing vote to draftify also. I legit found nothing through my mentioned methods. Thanks @WikiVirusC- MaxnaCarter (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, nothing came up on the Sydney Morning Herald when I searched Newspapers - usually it will even if paywalled. MaxnaCarter (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, most of them were EBSCO/WP Library, but I only was mentioning via EBSCO for the one I couldn't find a direct link to. WikiVirusC^(talk) 10:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per WikiVirusC. starship .paint (exalt) 07:40, 10 June 2022 (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.