Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Hacker Time: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:34, 1 February 2012 editWikipelli (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers128,340 edits →Hacker Time← Previous edit Revision as of 19:42, 2 February 2012 edit undoAndrozaniamy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,150 edits just look at the edit:)!Next edit →
Line 30: Line 30:
] (]) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC) ] (]) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
:No it does not. As I explained above ] says that nationally aired TV shows are ''' likely to be notable''' it does not say that they '''are notable'''. It also goes on to say "In either case, however, the presence or absence of ] is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone." The guideline ] says "This page in a nutshell: Misplaced Pages articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." So based on these and that fact that everyone involved in this discussion agree that no independent reliable source exist this TV show does not meet the notability guidelines. ]&nbsp;] 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC) :No it does not. As I explained above ] says that nationally aired TV shows are ''' likely to be notable''' it does not say that they '''are notable'''. It also goes on to say "In either case, however, the presence or absence of ] is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone." The guideline ] says "This page in a nutshell: Misplaced Pages articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." So based on these and that fact that everyone involved in this discussion agree that no independent reliable source exist this TV show does not meet the notability guidelines. ]&nbsp;] 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Who cares ]! We're supposed to expand ] not make it far too exclusive for its own good.
] (]) 19:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


::], would you be able to provide ] in the article or at least links to said newspaper reports? I believe the show is notable as a nationally-televised programme but I take the point that more independent references are needed. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC) ::], would you be able to provide ] in the article or at least links to said newspaper reports? I believe the show is notable as a nationally-televised programme but I take the point that more independent references are needed. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:42, 2 February 2012

Hacker Time

Hacker Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, as I cannot find any independent reliable sources about this TV show. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Misplaced Pages's notability guideline requires that reliable sources independent of the article subject notice the subject. In this case the only sources that have been provided or that I have been able to find are from BBC and not independent. I can not find anything that shows any reliable sources have provided any coverage of this TV show. WP:TVSHOW only says that a nationally televised show is likely (emphasis mine) to be notable, not that it is notable. GB fan 01:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - As stated above, no third party sources stating notability. Calabe1992 01:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - no independent sources that I can find. Karl 334 15:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep because although there is not "enough reliable sources" as you may put it, it has recieved significant blog and fan coverage which does show it is very, very popular and worth writing an article about. Just type 'Hacker Time CBBC' into Google or whatever search engine you use and you will see what I mean. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Blogs and "fan coverage" does not matter in determining the notability of a subject. If this television show were truly as popular as you say, it would have significant coverage in the media. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The thing is that the people who watch it and appreciate its great entertainment are not even old enough to make a new article about it on newspapers. Journalists like to write about stuff that appeals to them and their readers and as far as I know, not many children read newspapers regularly. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't swear, my point is that as this is a farly new TV series if you give it time and not come to hasty conclusions you will see things from my point of view. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't make articles about things that in time will be notable. They need to be notable first then we have articles about them. GB fan 19:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It is notable. Please don't delete it took me ages to make and has plenty of sources. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is not worthy enough for an article. Don't be a deletionist, it isn't helping Misplaced Pages. Androzaniamy (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between notable according to you and notable according to Misplaced Pages guidelines. Generally topics are notable only if someone can show that independent reliable sources have provided significant coverage of the topic. There are some exceptions to that but TV shows is not among the exceptions. Multiple people have looked for this coverage but have failed to find it. You have even said that you haven't found anything. In what way does this show meet the notability guidelines of Misplaced Pages. GB fan 17:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no difference between what I think is notable and what the Misplaced Pages policy suggests so please stop lying and typing in swear words that I have removed for obvious reasons as there is no need to swear here, especially in front of children. Androzaniamy (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If it meets Misplaced Pages notability guidelines please explain how it does that. GB fan 17:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:TVSHOW says it all. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No it does not. As I explained above WP:TVSHOW says that nationally aired TV shows are likely to be notable it does not say that they are notable. It also goes on to say "In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone." The guideline Notability says "This page in a nutshell: Misplaced Pages articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." So based on these and that fact that everyone involved in this discussion agree that no independent reliable source exist this TV show does not meet the notability guidelines. GB fan 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Who cares Misplaced Pages:Be bold! We're supposed to expand Misplaced Pages not make it far too exclusive for its own good. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Androzaniamy, would you be able to provide citations in the article or at least links to said newspaper reports? I believe the show is notable as a nationally-televised programme but I take the point that more independent references are needed. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ 18:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There are no newspaper reports that I know of or even mentioned. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment: leaning towards keep per GRuban's observation. But, are there no rating services for BBC? Certainly somewhere there's a breakdown of the number of viewers of a program. I found ratings on tvguide.uk (not the correct url) which gave it a 'rating' but no explanation about their rating system. If there are 'millions of viewers', shouldn't there be some site that reports that info? Wikipelli 22:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Hacker Time: Difference between revisions Add topic