Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishtronaut

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:37, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fishtronaut[edit]

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

Does not appear notable, has had no sources for the past eight years and still states that a film is upcomming and set for 2016. A quick Google returns Twitter posts and YouTube videos faster than any news article; in fact, there was no news article at all. Should be deleted. Lordtobi (✉) 22:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes WP:TVSERIES as it's been aired on a television channel with an international scope (at least Discovery Kids in Latin America.) You can also apparently watch it on Netflix: [1] We don't delete articles just because they haven't been updated in awhile. SportingFlyer talk 23:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 03:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It needs significant coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. Being on a television channel with an international scope or Netflix does not actually mean that it has received a significant coverage form independent reliable secondary sources to be notable. Bolhones (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has, that's why WP:TVSERIES is helpful: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] SportingFlyer talk 22:32, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misenal and PRNewswire are obviously unreliable. Toon Boom is the closest to in-depth coverage, but you need multiple good in-depths to satsify GNG. All Portoguese ones are just routine coverage, let alone that they are all in a foregin language (sure, there may be reliable foreign websites, but a proper article cannot just build almost exclusively on those). Lordtobi (✉)

Nope. Even assuming some aren't unreliable, major Brazilian papers did a review of the movie based on the television show. How is that routine? SportingFlyer talk 13:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources you pointed out above, except for Toon Boom, are just a handful of paragraphs long and, if Google Translate acted accordingly, only had a short (very short) recap of the topic in oarallel to whatever is the article about. The size of the source website is not of matter, the size of the actual article is, and this is clearly not significant coverage. Furthermore, if you are saying that they reviewed the movie, how does that make the TV series notable? Lordtobi (✉) 13:22, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, there are many other sources in multiple languages, which is what you would expect from a television show which gets aired on many channels across multiple countries (and easily passes WP:TVSERIES). Did you even bother doing any sort of in-depth WP:BEFORE search? Did you see that it was on YouTube and Twitter and just stop? Honestly, this is one of the biggest AfD misses I have come across in my time doing AfDs. [10] [11] SportingFlyer talk 06:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, have done my research and found that reliable, in-depth coverage is far too scarce. Listing unreliable references en masse will not aid the matter either. Lordtobi (✉) 06:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to know why you think these sources are unreliable. There's no size requirement for notability concerns, especially when you're trying to satisfy WP:TVSERIES - since television series may not have the same in-depth coverage as say a politician, the fact major Brazilian newspapers reviewed the (second!) movie spinoff shows notability, as does the Indian Infoline Bloomberg-style site showing it's airing on an Indian network, as does the fact there's a musical spinoff. As I've shown, reliable sources showing this is a television series which airs on multiple international networks exist in at least English, Spanish, and Portuguese. SportingFlyer talk 02:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you should review WP:RS and WP:V. Notability is not granted by the lack of '.wordpress.com' and '.blogspot.com' (aka. not a hosted blog), but websites have to meet certain requirements which you will find out when reading the policies. Lordtobi (✉) 05:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand WP:RS and WP:V, and I don't understand why you think these sources are unreliable. You've even said Mi Senal isn't reliable, but it's the website for the channel in Colombia on which the series airs, an important component of WP:TVSERIES! SportingFlyer talk 05:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then that one fails WP:PRIMARY. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 23:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily: most importantly, it shows the show has aired internationally under WP:TVSHOW. While that guarantees only likely notability, reviews from major Brazilian papers and film review sites demonstrate notability pretty clearly. Remember this is a children's television show from a non-English speaking country, meaning . [12]. This older article contains a description from when the show started, as well. [13] Heck, a Google Scholar search brings up scholarly articles discussing the show (try the Portuguese name, 150+ hits.) SportingFlyer talk 07:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Exemplo347 (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per SportingFlyer passes in WP:TVSERIES.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets tvseries guideline. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd relist for more discussion on sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, » Z0 | talk 08:30, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TVSERIES and lack of reliable independent sources (WP:GNG). All we have is press releases and promotional material - no independent reliable sources talking about in depth. All we have is advertising. Essentially, the series exists, and is being moderately promoted, but there is a lack of evidence of notability. SilkTork (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why would a show that's on several different international networks fail WP:TVSERIES? SportingFlyer talk 01:10, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TVSHOW is sometimes misunderstood, and I think it is being here: being "aired nationally" does not "guarantee" that there is significant coverage – it just generally implies that there is. But there are definitely exceptions – e.g. certain unscripted television programs or childrens television series that do air nationally, but still do not generate significant independent coverage. Ultimately, TVSHOW doesn't determine notability – "significant independent coverage" under WP:GNG does. So, when in doubt, try to find if there really is "significant independent coverage". (Note: I'm not actually offering an opinion in this case – I'm just saying editors have to be careful with how they approach use of WP:TVSHOW...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:08, 29 May 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.