Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up


 * 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. The consensus here appears to be that there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to make the subject notable. Tim Song (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

SummerPhD's prod for this television special was removed and I can't find significant coverage also. Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been rescue flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- Joe Chill (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - As summarized above, I have been unable to find reliable sources for this article and there are none present. IMDb is not a source. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google News Archive shows plenty of RS coverage. Programs that aired on major television networks are presumed notable per OUTCOMES, and the coverage certainly seems to bear that out. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that I have added multiple RS to the article, such that it clearly meets V now. Significant coverage appears to be behind the various paywalls, but clearly appears in the Google News Archive search. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - We need substantial coverage in reliable sources. Your first source is a bare mention, "... and a host of 50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up." Next, we have a TV listing. Yep, it exists, as does "Scheewe Art Workshop" (which might be notable, but not based on this). The last two,  and  are user edited. Anyone can add anything -- not reliable sources. Don't tell us there might be substantial coverage in reliable sources somewhere, show us. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, television shows are presumed notable. This is more of an episode than a show. Joe Chill (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've got a better idea--while I find more sources, can the two of you be so kind as to take the undisputably RS that I have found, and put them into cite web format? That's assuming you're interested in improving the encyclopedia rather than just grousing about when other people try and improve it, of course. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, SummerPhD, what an incredible amount of effort you expended to add fv tags when you could easily have fixed them yourself. Gotta say, no matter how childishly you respond in the AfD, you simply can't come up with an absence of sources. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I appreciate the efforts made to find and add some sources, although I think it's a tough sell to establish that the show itself is notable.  There are some others that indicate that this was promoted when it was a Saturday night  rerun  and there are indications that reporters preparing to interview a former kid star will refer to the countdown in the questioning .  However, I think that the original intent of the article was simply to have an excuse to list all 50 names and their rankings, and one would then click on the blue links to see what they did after they grew up and how they're doing now (#8 died last week).  Remove that and what's left in the article?  The countdown probably won't be lost to history-- things like that do survive on the internet, usually as part of message boards (for example ). Mandsford 02:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment four additional offline reliable sources, three non-trivial, retrieved via Lexis-Nexis, have been added to the article. Full citations are included if anyone would like to find them and argue that they don't represent substantial independent coverage, but failing that, notability has been clearly established. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news, Google books, and surprisingly even Google scholar search shows results. Looking through the news, it seems obvious a show is notable if its mentioned that many times.  The article quotes many news sources which commented on the show.   D r e a m Focus  05:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Kudos to Jclemens on finding good sources to demonstrate notability.  Many TV series on wikipedia have separate articles for every episode; in contrast, this was a special feature which received individual coverage.--Milowent (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per improvements made and sources found.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for sources found by Jclemens. Kudos to Jclemens for the excellent work! -- Cycl o pia talk  11:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nice improvements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep impressive improvements. A TV special can be just like any film or event. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I have truncated the list to the top 10. The list is copyrightable, and we cannot reproduce it in its entirety without permission. The top 10 should be permissible ala fair use, as with other subjective lists like The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that and fixing it in an appropriate manner. I hadn't even thought about it. Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * NP. I know all too well what it is to focus on one issue and overlook another.:D --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The "countdown" style didn't seem encyclopedic. I've reversed the order, from 1 to 10. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - While the ARS have certainly piled on the Keep !votes, none of the sources added to this article prove anything other than the fact that this show actually existed. It's obvious that none of the ARS members actually examined any of the references that were added to the article, and just added their blind praise about how great the improvements to the article are.  If we actually look at all of the references, we find the following:
 * Reference 1: Broken link.
 * Reference 2: A very short promotional blog, mainly about Rudy Huxtable. Not a reliable source.
 * Reference 3: An article about Candace Cameron. Mentions the show in passing once.
 * Reference 4: No link provided.
 * Reference 5: TV Guide type publication which proves that the article existed and actually aired.
 * Reference 6: TV Guide type publication which proves that the article existed and actually aired.
 * Reference 7: No link provided, but title implies that it is similar to references 5 & 6.
 * Reference 8: No link provided, but title implies that it is similar to references 5 & 6.
 * Reference 9: No link provided. Title implies that the article only proves that the article exists and nothing more.
 * Reference 10: No link provided. Title implies that the article only proves that the article exists and nothing more.
 * So again, we know that the show existed. Existence does not imply notability.  There are still no reliable sources which establish the notability of this one-time 2-hour TV show from 5 years ago.  (For reference, I was working off of this revision of the article.)    talk 00:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that the Google Books link in #1 had become broken in an intermediate update. I was able (as were you of course, but you didn't) to go back to where it was originally added, find the correct link, and update the footnote accordingly. As far as your criticisms of 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10, please see WP:PAYWALL.  Just because you don't feel like expending the effort and/or money to get the articles in electronic or print format, that isn't particularly anyone's problem but yourself.  Note especially that specific commentary and criticism about the special are attributed, with direct quotation, to these offline sources (numbers 4, 9, and 10 in the version you permalinked). In other words, your !vote does not align with Wikipedia's sourcing policy and will most likely be given appropriately lesser weight by the closing administrator.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you assert without explanation that EW Popwatch, a Blog run by a major media outlet, is not a reliable source. Would you care to elaborate? Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to elaborate on your second question, just see WP:NEWSBLOG for more information. In any case, are you really trying to say that an informal 200-word blog post on "EW Popwatch" is your single source that establishes notability?    talk 05:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No one ever said it was sufficient; it is simply one of several references. I asked why you asserted it wasn't reliable.  WP:NEWSBLOG supports the use of editorially controlled blogs as reliable sources, so I'm still not sure what your problem is with the ref. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As for your first response, I never said that the sources were invalid because I need to pay to see them. I was just disclosing that I was unable to verify the sources on my own.  However, the titles of the sources imply the level on content that they likely provide.  Perhaps, since you presumably have access to the sources, you can enlighten us as to how these sources establish the notability (as opposed to the mere existence) of the TV show.  Here are the titles of the sources in question: (Note that Jclemens has interspersed his comments within Snottywong's post below)
 * Arpe Pretty, Malene (2006-01-07). "Child Stars". The Toronto Star: p. K02. -  Is the TV show the main subject of the article, or is it merely mentioned somewhere?
 * Per the article's text "In 2006, the Toronto Star published their own list in response to the special, referring to it as "Seven Cutest Child Stars: Not Grown Up Yet, But When They are This is What Will Happen"". So in case that wasn't clear, yes, the entire article was a reaction to the special. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Goodings, Scott. "Thursday - Pay TV". The Age: p. 46. -  The title of this article from an Australian newspaper implies that it is simply a listing of what TV shows were playing on Thursday.  Furthermore, the footnote doesn't even give us the date of the newspaper edition, so this one is impossible to verify even if I had access to Australian newspapers.
 * Thanks for catching that. The date is now included.  As it stands in the article, the article is just being used to support the assertion that the show is periodically rebroadcast. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Digital Highlights - Saturday January 21". The Daily Telegraph: p. 25. 2006-01-18. -  This also appears to be a TV guide type listing.
 * As the above entry, all it's being used to support is the rebroadcast. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Freer, Sloan (2007-09-09). "Pick of the Day". The Observer: p. 24. -  Apparently some editor's favorite TV show of the day?  Or perhaps just a reprint of the press release for the show?
 * The article currently references this statement to this article: "Sloan Freer wrote in The Observer that the list was "veg-out, no-brainer viewing" which contained "plenty of debatable selections to shout at the TV about - especially when you get to the top spot, which frankly I think is a cheat."" Again, from the bits quoted in the article, it's relatively easy to establish that this is a review of the special, neither a program listing nor a press release. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Top TV". The Sunday Mail: p. G27. 2006-09-17. -  Also some editor's favorite TV show of the day.  Is every newspaper editor's favorite TV show of the day notable?
 * One review does not make a program notable. Three of them, in reliable sources, each of which deals non-trivially with the subject of an article do.  Of course, I've given you nothing here that you couldn't already establish from the content of the article--you see, all the evidence of notability is there for you to see in the article--the only thing the paywall robs you of is the ability to effortlessly review the originals from whence those statements were taken. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If I have incorrectly assumed the content of any of these sources, then by all means please correct me. However, if I have assumed correctly, then you clearly have 10 sources which prove the existence of the TV show, and zero sources that establish its notability.  If anything, the closing admin will likely give far lesser weight to the empty "Great job!" keep votes from ARS than he/she will to someone who has actually checked out your sources.     talk 05:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whats with this "obviously did not review the sources" slander? I reviewed a number of the sources, to the extent I could access them.  The only thing obvious is that you forgot your Wheaties this morning, Snottywong.  You simply disagree with other editors on whether the mass of coverage of this television special is weighty enough in the aggregate to achieve notability.  This sort of disagreement is not uncommon on wikipedia.--Milowent (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. I disagree that the "mass of coverage" in TV Guide listings and 200-word blog posts is weighty enough.  The fact that you have actually reviewed these sources and have come to the conclusion that they satisfy WP:N (without any explanation apart from "Kudos to JClemens") should be uncommon, but unfortunately for Wikipedia, it's far from it.    talk 05:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What's also far from uncommon is folks who decide an article isn't notable, who !vote to delete it without apparently ever having read the article and its footnotes that clearly establish its notability. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then, and see how the closing admin sees it. I still maintain that your sources fall squarely under WP:EXIST.  It really doesn't matter if you can find 1000 TV Guide listings and 1000 articles that mention the TV show in passing, you will end up with 2000 sources which prove that a non-notable TV show exists.     talk 14:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You realize that you're assuming bad faith on RS'es you haven't read, right? Or further, that you haven't overcome the presumption (which is validated by the RS I found in Lexis-Nexis) in WP:OUTCOMES that a television program that's aired on a major network is notable? While I respect your right to disengage, you may want to clarify how those two issues relate to your objections.  Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't see any assumption of bad faith in questioning the intentions of those providing sources. However, I do see a lack of a clear assumption of good faith in both sides of the back and forth on the sources and the nomination. Rather than discussing whether both of you think various editors have read what they are commenting on, please limit your discussion to the content. (Incidentally, the outcome I'm seeing refers to "Television series broadcast nationally". This was not a series.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhD (talk • contribs) 10:57, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Person A "I read this offline source, it asserts notability"
 * Person B "I haven't read it, but I don't believe you"
 * How, precisely, is that not an assumption of bad faith? Or, failing that, how have I missummarized the exchange? Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as OUTCOMES go, would you argue that "a television series" excludes a made-for-TV movie solely because it only aired once? Rather, what we see here is clear evidence that E! has re-sold airing rights worldwide--indeed, I have no idea why, but the reliable sources that deal with the content in depth all seem to be non-U.S., English-speaking papers (Australia, UK, Canada).  It puzzles me. Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not assuming bad faith. I specifically disclosed that I was unable to verify a few of the sources, then I disclosed that I was making assumptions based on the title of the sources, and then I asked you to confirm whether my assumptions were correct.  Where is the assumption of bad faith?  As for WP:OUTCOMES, this is not a TV series so it's not applicable.  Even if it was a TV series, WP:OUTCOMES is not WP policy, and furthermore it only says that TV series are usually kept.  So, it would appear you are grasping at straws.    talk 15:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we've said everything we need to say, and we're obviously not going to change each others' minds. Unless you have any different arguments you'd like me to respond to, I'm going to wait for the closing admin's decision.    talk 15:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you still !vote delete after I've explained why the sources you can't read meet our notability criteria is tantamount to you calling me a liar. You have no objective basis on which to !vote delete in light of those sources, because you claim to never have read them. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't follow, and I'm confused by your assumption of bad faith regarding the accusation that I'm calling you a liar. For the third time:  I disclosed that I was unable to read some of the sources, I made assumptions of the content of said sources based on their titles, and I asked you to confirm if my assumptions were correct.  Your description of the sources essentially confirmed that my assumptions were correct.  I'm not calling you a liar, I'm simply saying that the titles of the sources combined with your description of the content of the sources didn't convince me that those sources establish notability.  For the last time: all of your sources are either TV Guide listings, or articles which mention the TV show in passing.  They only prove existence, not notability.  There actually is a difference.  None of the non-TV-Guide articles are actually about the TV show, they are all about something else, and they simply mention the TV show at one point or another.  Try actually reading WP:N if you intend to respond, specifically the requirement of "Significant Coverage", and specifically: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention".     talk 01:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where to start? I'm not going to respond to your WP:IDHT; I've given sufficient explanation, and you not reading it doesn't make it any different: How many "TV guide" type listings include named reviews of the material listed, hmm?  Your own bd faith is showing, by the way. Jclemens (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Sorry, but I don't see can't see this as an encyclopedic topic. If there was solid examination of it in a book then fair enough, but in the real world I think most authors would get laughed out of the publishing house. There's no references to any reliable sources with significant editorial control, and it's really just a list of some researchers favourite child actors/actresses from ~20 years ago. An encyclopedia article is supposed to be summarising human knowledge, but I don't see that this is really any kind of summary, it's just a somewhat random list. It's a shame, because people obviously put effort into it, and it's actually well written but it's fundamentally misguided as a topic.- Wolfkeeper 06:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In what precise what do The Age (newspaper), The Observer, Entertainment Weekly, Sunday Mail (Adelaide) and The Toronto Star not represent independent, reliable sources? Note further that the article is referencing the television special which constructed the list of actors, not the list nor the actors themselves. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In my opinion they don't meet the notability guideline. The references are too ephemeral and trivial for the topic to reach sufficient notability individually or in aggregate.- Wolfkeeper 08:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per snottywong. Despite sources existing which prove this program exists (tv guide type sources), there are no WP:RS which show this program meets the criteria of WP:NOTE. Verbal chat  07:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In what precise what do The Age (newspaper), The Observer, Entertainment Weekly, Sunday Mail (Adelaide) and The Toronto Star not represent independent, reliable sources? On what basis do you assert that all of the offline refs are "tv guide type sources"? Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete It existed, sources show it existed. Doesn't make it notable - people can provide sources indicating every single TV programme in the world existed... Minkythecat (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- Weak claim of notability supported by trivial referenced content. Off2riorob (talk) 11:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely routine coverage in tv listings that would exist for pretty much any individual programme shown. This does not show the notability of this programme. Quantpole (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources establish this minor tv show is notable. The sourcing standard for this wold argue for an article on every show that ever appeared on TV -- anywhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable tv special and most of the sources are merely trivial. I just checked some of the references that aren't available online on Factiva's database and they're trivial tv listings. The Daily Telegraph "article" is two sentences long. The Observer "article" by Sloan Freer repeatedly referenced above is also two sentences long. I don't believe the sources demonstrate this is a notable tv special. Sarah 12:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look at the sources. Did you happen to notice that the Toronto Star article is 700 words? Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly the Toronto Star article is a much more reasonable length (Factiva's version is actually 913 words), however, the special is not really the subject of that article. Rather, the article is a satirical discussion of the Star's own list of child stars. It only mentions the show at the start and it doesn't even tell me the basics (like who hosts it), before going into the main and largest section (about 3/4 of the article), which is their own list of child stars followed by a short paragraph satirically outlining what each has done and the prospects for their post-child star futures. It's really not about this tv special and I still believe that the sources are inadequate to support a claim that it's a notable special. I appreciate the work you've done trying to find sources and editing the article but I honestly don't believe this special is notable and I've seen nothing in the 12 sources that come up in Factiva for the title that prompts me to change my mind about that. Most of the sources are trivial mentions of a couple of sentences and the ones that are longer are not really about this special but the child stars. Sorry, Jclemens, but I just don't see notability here. Sarah 04:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where did all the Gary Coleman haters come from?--Milowent (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice. Quantpole (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whats it got to do with hating Gary Coleman? Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, per Snottywong, no significant coverage which demonstrates notability. Claritas § 17:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – I'm not surprised that a TV special that has been rebroadcast in international markets has become the subject of some newspaper coverage, beyond just TV listings. I've read the Toronto Star article; it's substantial coverage. Along with the brief reviews in such other sources as the Daily Telegraph and The Observer (brief but non-trivial coverage can help support notability), that's not a lot of coverage but it's enough for our WP:N guidelines. It's unfortunate that this discussion has perhaps become tainted by the dispute between Jclemens and SnottyWong. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 17:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Toronto Star article isn't coverage of this tv special, however. It's just a satirical article listing child stars the Star's staff came up with along with some commentary on the stars. The tv special, while no doubt prompting or inspiring the article, is mentioned in passing. Sarah 04:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:N, the topic needs significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources found have already been well analyzed by others so I will simply reiterate that the coverage for this special, mostly a few bare mentions. As such, the special is just not notable, even if it was interesting to watch. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've checked the sources, and as per the comments above unfortunatly they don't seem to provide sufficient coverage to establish notability. - Bilby (talk) 07:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.