Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pink Is In

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. — The Earwig (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Is In[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)

Article about a television series, not adequately referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. One of the base notability criteria that a television show has to meet to get a presumption of notability is that it airs on a national network -- but this airs only on a cable community channel in a single market, which means it has to clear a much, much higher burden of sourceability than a series that was actually airing on CTV or CBC or Global would. But for coverage, all it really has is a couple of hits in the local media of its own local market, along with one hit of "local actress gets role" in the hometown newspaper of one of its cast members in an article that's fundamentally about her rather than the show per se, which is not enough coverage to make it notable in spite of its lack of national network carriage. Additionally, this was first created by an editor with a clear conflict of interest, as their username very closely corresponds to the name of the show's creator. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if its basis for notability changes (e.g. actually getting picked up by a national network for followup seasons), but simply existing is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a local TV show from having to have nationalized carriage or nationalized coverage. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - quickly googling there does seem to be sufficient coverage of this. There are additional articles about the show that are not currently referenced. For example: [1], [2]. These seem very clearly to indicate notability. matt91486 (talk) 17:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry looking closer I see the first of those links is in the article, I copied the wrong one in. The second is not. The other one I meant to link to was: [3] - which I acknowledge being only a capsule review, but it's in a major publication and on top of the existing references. matt91486 (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 11:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I pull up articles on CBC, ETCanada and Globe and Mail, so it seems notable enough. Article could use better sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is pretty notable and there's a lot of sources I can find of it by doing a quick search, it's rather just a stub but overall the article meets WP:GNG. - 𓋹 𝓩𝓲𝓪𝓭 𝓡𝓪𝓼𝓱𝓪𝓭 𓋹 [user | talk] 11:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:RS is present. Ambrosiawater (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above. WP:GNG is easily met with a quick search. Redoryxx (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2021 (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.