 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 November 11. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. BigDom 06:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dating Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable show. Was deleted by a PROD earlier this year, and then recreated by a sock of a banned user. I'm bringing this here rather than reprodding or CSD because I'd rather there's a community discussion. GedUK 14:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've looked through GNews and a general Google web search and not found much of anything. The only mentions of the show are a single sentence (occasionally two), but always in articles discussing the Teletoon channel as a whole, including all of its other shows. Teletoon is notable, but, for now, this show doesn't seem to be. It needs to get some reviews from mainstream sources before it will meet our criteria. SilverserenC 18:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article is nothing but cruft, and without any revelations of significant, published discussion there is no notability. A redirect, maybe--but perhaps this needs to be salted. Drmies (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We're talking about a multi-season television show on a major cable channel. See [1] and [2] for examples of media coverage. At the very least, this could be merged to the production company behind the program, marblemedia. Pburka (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those links could possibly be considered to be 'significant coverage'. GedUK 16:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Here's a better article: [3]. Pburka (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. It's very in-universe, to say the least! It supports the fact that the show exists, that is true, but I don't think that was ever in doubt... Drmies (talk) 17:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those links could possibly be considered to be 'significant coverage'. GedUK 16:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage by reliable publications. Fails WP:GNG. LK (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2011 (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.