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. I don’t really see a strong enough delete consensus here. Suggest that this gets renominated after a suitable period to allow more thorough source searching. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy Girl (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Prod placed by another user was contested. A WP:BEFORE search yielded zero sources. I could find no reviews in newspapers and there were no hits in google books or academic search engines You would think a TV show from 2001 would have online sources given that it is from the internet age, but I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I realise that this is only an essay, but I quote WP:BCASTOUTCOMES "Television series, game shows, and talk shows broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept." Maybe in 2001 the internet was still at an earlier stage of development. Although I realise that notability isn't usually inherited, both the author Elizabeth Arnold (children's writer) and one of the actors Eleanor Bron do have Wikipedia articles, and the latter is fairly well known. PatGallacher (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Normally WP:BCASTOUTCOMES is a fairly good predictor, and as you say it is an essay and not policy. I would consider this a "short lived" television program given that it only lasted a single season and only had seven 25 minute long episodes. Per BCASTOUTCOMES and WP:NTVNATL (another essay), short lived programs are not necessarily kept. Having found no sources in an extensive search, it's my belief that this program went largely unrecognized by media because it was short lived and that there is not likely to be sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Further, per NTVNATL the defining measuring stick for notability is the "presence or absence of reliable sources". At this point we have nothing more that database entries in BFI and TV guide; neither of which have an attributed author or could be considered significant coverage. I'm not seeing an evidence based rationale to keep the article, and after considerable effort trying to find sources with no success I'm fairly confident deletion is the best course of action even in regards to the language at BCASTOUTCOMES per the "short lived" program exception in that essay's language.4meter4 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per PatGallacher. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp I am surprised that an admin would support an argument not based in policy. There are zero sources which meet GNG, and a thorough search in newspaper archives, JSTOR, EBSCOE, google books, google scholar, etc. has yielded nothing. Can you please explain why you think this is a good argument? I am honestly disheartened to see an admin who I respect supporting a badly made argument based on an essay and not policy with no supporting evidence.4meter4 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is based on policy. WP:CONSENSUS, which WP:BCASTOUTCOMES merely illustrates. And any editor can make any argument they choose at AfD. I, personally, am disheartened by editors who seem to have the attitude that because someone is an admin they are not allowed an opinion and must merely trot out the "party line" (strangely, usually the one they back!). I've seen it all too often used as a threat against admins (including myself), and that is worrying. I'm sure you did not intend it in that way, but all the same. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is, while nowhere near a full review, at least a recommendation as a pick of the day from The Daily Telegraph. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Insufficient coverage to ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NTV and WP:NBROADCAST are both essays, so playing one off against the other isn't conclusive. There appears plenty enough coverage to V this, and pretty much everyone agrees that it lasted for at most seven episodes, so coverage is really in line with what we'd expect for an early 2000s half-season show--but I kid. If it's not kept, then merging the whole stub to a section in Elizabeth Arnold (children's writer) is an appropriate ATD. Jclemens (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens the deletion rationale was based on WP:GNG not an essay. As it is we still have zero references with "significant coverage". A brief advert type puff piece in The Daily Telegraph is not in-depth coverage, and neither are un-authored BFI and TV guide database listings. GNG is the standard, and so far none of the keep voters have put forward anything that could be perceived as sig cov such as a critical review or even a listing in an academic reference work on television. I am honestly dismayed that editors with experience are not looking at the sources with the usual critical eye that we apply at AFD across the board. Where are the sources with by-lined authors with some sort of original text, analysis, or commentary? Database entries may verify details, but they are not WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The essays suggest that offline coverage likely exists somewhere, since it was aired nationally. We acknowledge that things for which no sources can be found are not necessarily things for which no sources exist. We have a whole disambiguation page which will still have 20 other entries if this one is removed. Oh, and it doesn't even include a Steven Tyler song of the same name. Think there might be some difficulty searching for sources with that overlap? More to the point, does anyone really think the encyclopedia will be improved by removing a non-promotional permastub? Of course not. Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have nominated the article if I hadn't thought the encyclopedia would be improved. Jclemens, your view point boils down to a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument which is listed as an argument to avoid at AFD. Further, basing a keep vote on an essay without community support is not good practice for an admin in my opinion. Additionally, I seriously doubt that sources with significant coverage exist. I have searched extensively for sources in numerous databases, reference works, academic search engines, etc. and I am fairly confident that there isn't any SIGCOV. I am generally very successful at finding critical reviews on obscure TV shows and films (as I create content in the arts regularly), and given that plenty of time has passed for television reference works to include coverage (which they do not currently) I am fairly certain deletion is the best policy based decision in this case. I honestly think this is a non-notable topic and the encyclopedia is improved by deleting the article. We have notability criteria for a reason, and we should follows those policies as written.4meter4 (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if you did all that legwork, why did it take three relists and me coming along for a proper ATD to be identified? And why did you not address my proposal in your responses to me? I routinely find things that "fairly certain" editors missed, which leads me to believe that, based on a preponderance of evidence, sources do exist for this sort of show, regardless of your stated efforts--I don't need to ABF to believe that you're more than likely wrong. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2023 (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.