Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The TV Ratings Guide

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. Sandstein 16:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The TV Ratings Guide[edit]

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

Came across this one in the new pages. The resources provided on the page itself are entirely primary and from the website itself. A quick search on Google turns up nothing but the page, its social media, and some blog mentions. It appears to be a blog created for this purpose. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous credible sources outside of the site alone have now been added.--Jonathan Joseph (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see more blogs and some twitter posts, nothing that meets WP:RS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:32, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several actual websites, including TVBTN, the Observer, and Alexa. --Jonathan Joseph (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Various reliable sources, such as TV By the Numbers, have recognized the site as a notable source of news and content. --Tvlover19 (talk) 1:31, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep. There are many sources to back up that this is a credible site. TV By the Numbers is a prominent website that also has a wikipedia page. -- Bob12967 —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The citations to their own site can be ignored. So can those to Twitter, which is not WP:RS. I looked at the others. Not a single one of them is actually about TVRG, and several don't mention it at all (including the citation to The Observer). Alexa Internet merely supplies web traffic analysis (and the three citations to it are identical). No independent in-depth coverage = fails WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to throw accusations around, but multiple similar arguments all with very similar stilted grammar and all without reference to WP:POLICY make me think of whatever that thing is which separates my shoe from the end of my leg. WP:AFD is, of course, a policy-based discussion, not a majority vote. Narky Blert (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't have to be about the website, the sources prove that the website is used and viewed as a credible source among many popular and respected websites, and has reached a level of credibility and popularity, there's no reason for deletion. And all the sources do mention the site, including the Observer. The site is backlinked. --Jonathan Joseph (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Double vote stricken.

"The sources don't have to be about the website." The ones supporting notability do.

"And all the sources do mention the site, including the Observer." No they don't and no it doesn't. Narky Blert (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"And all the sources do mention the site, including the Observer. No they don't and no it doesn't." Yes, they do, you conveniently left out the part where I said the site was back linked in many of the sources. The Observer specifically linked the site at the bottom of the article, just like the site was linked and is on every other source given on the page.--Jonathan Joseph (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "black link" in the article is inside the word "Nielsen." As far as I know, Nielsen are not related to TVRG. Do you believe they are? Why the Observer chose to link to TVRG instead of Nielsen proper, we do not know. But that's no proof of notability. -The Gnome (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article informs readers about site and does not come across in a biased manner. —�- 21:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.147.235.111 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are 2 spa keep votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "There are 2 spa keep votes." That was my count also. Narky Blert (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources ostensibly proving notability number about fifty, an impressive number. At closer inspection, however, almost all of them are not worth the bandwidth they take up.

Alexa Internet will mention or list anything that's online, even if it rates close to zero. The multiple sourcing to Alexa shows weakness rather than strength in terms of notability, unless we believe that every one of the thirty million websites monitored by Alexa is, by that fact, notable.
Then, there's a whole bunch of self-referential links, from Twitter posts down to the official website of TVRG. These are all officially unreliable, primary sources.
Next up are the blogs. Another source that's treated by Wikipedia like an unreliable witness.
Bringing up the stinky rear are sources that mention the subject zero times, such as this one. (Yes, it's TV By The Numbers. Someone above based their vote on account of TVRG mentioned by that source, but a quick check reveals nothing.) Or, you see a link taking you to the Observer and you think, of course, "That's a Jared Kushner company. It's gotta be trustworthy." Alas, this link too contains zero mentions of the subject.

It's a non-notable outfit. No two ways about it. -The Gnome (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have no issues with self-published sources providing they're outweighed by reliable and independent sources .... In this case the majority of sources in the article are self published and the Twitter ones are more or less mentions of the website and that's about it,

Now for independent sources we get 2 results on Google News[1] (This and This), Now the first source is basically that news website crediting an image taken from TVRG, The second source is someone commenting on the article and signing off as "The TV Ratings Guide" ..... so to put it in simple terms there are no independent sources for this website at all .....,

Books are useless as only one book mentions the website[2] however the book is a word for word copy of Craig Ferguson, Another mentions a completely different ratings guide and then the other 5 or so books are unrelated,

If you take away the self-published crap and the one-bit Twitter mentions there is literally nothing... not even a scratch of notability here..... The keeps are laughable at best and should be ignored in their entirety,

If anyone can find any sort of evidence of notability that goes beyond TVRGs website and the half-arsed Twitter mentions then I'm all ears. –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - May I suggest an option C? Move the article to a draft space so people can attach "reliable" sources if they exist. Esuka323 (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Esuka323. The AfD has been up since April Fool's Day. Wouldn't you think that such sources would have been found and posted up by the article's many ardent supporter? -The Gnome (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 - If sources existed they would've been posted by now, If sources don't exist then it's utterly pointless to move as it would only be stored and abandoned (thus failing WP:NOTWEBHOST), If anyone has found any reliable sources now would be a good idea to present those. –Davey2010^Talk 15:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. WP:AFD should encourage editors to try to save any article worth keeping. If they can't, it's not worth keeping. Narky Blert (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW Narky Blert I originally came to this AFD with the plan of !voting Keep and providing a plethora of sources, Unfortunately it wasn't meant to be, Ah well. –Davey2010^Talk 00:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per notability issues with the sources raised by other editors. Esuka323 (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per The Gnome. Nothing showing any real independant coverage that is significant Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:48, 15 April 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.