Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CSI: The Experience


 * 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   keep. – sgeureka t•c 07:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

CSI: The Experience

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Almost all sources are primary. No secondary coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems like a case for better referencing, not deletion. Although the sources are primary, their trustworthiness is good and the claims they make are modest, so we're hardly into the scope of "extraordinary claims need extraordinary references". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The topic is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - A step or two closer to the promotional/commercial line than optimal, but the show is a big enough cultural phenomenon to make this inclusion-worthy, in my estimation. Sourcing needs to be improved, certainly, but it's safe to assume that there are stories extant dedicated to this — (what shall we call it, stage production?) — to satisfy WP General Notability Guidelines.  —Carrite
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is not an argument. Show me it's notable, don't tell me. Can't you people get that through your skulls? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Topic is notable. More references should be found and the article expanded. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Can't you people get that through your skulls? might be considered a breach of WP:CIVILITY. Yousou (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Maybe the perpetrator can narc himself out to ANI instead of hauling me up there again for a third time... —Carrite], Sept. 25, 2010.


 * Delete. Notability is about significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and is not demonstrated.  Guessing that there might be some around somewhere is not sufficient.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would save us all a lot of trouble if obviously sketchy challenges like this one weren't launched in the first place. But, if you insist, here is independent coverage from the largest newspaper in the state of Nevada. LINK. A terrible challenge, tons of google hits out there on this... —Carrite, Sept. 25, 2010.
 * We don't have to guess. Just look at the head of this AFD where a link to Google Books is provided.  This demonstrates that there are numerous sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Being mentioned in a guide book is not notability. But what is curious is that of the "numerous" sources (actually 8) only one appears to be talking about this travelling exhibition, and that is less than a paragraph, explicitly citing its website.  As you say, we don't have to guess.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 09:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Coverage in guidebooks is certainly notability. We should not copy the style of a guidebook but such works are good evidence of notice and provide reliable sources for our own coverage.  The The Unofficial Guide to Las Vegas 2011, for example, has a long multi-page entry which provides good detail to support our article.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Some forms of coverage may support notability, and some may not (not everything mentioned in a guidebook deserves its own article). The point remains that significant mention in reliable independent sources needs to be demonstrated, not merely assumed or guessed at.  Glad to hear you've finally been able to find something, although I do wonder how a guide to Las Vegas supports an article about a travelling exhibition which does not even mention that city.  Still, no doubt it will be clear in time.  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The exhibit at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas seems to be permanent. See locations for details. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but this article is about a travelling exhibition "currently touring museums and science centers across the United States, Europe, and Asia". You seem to be amassing evidence for the notability of some other article?  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They are all versions of the exhibition which was first developed by Fort Worth Museum of Science and History. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Then that needs to be incorporated in the article with appropriate citations. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have better things to do, such as improving our important article Basic research which lacked citations of any sort until I added one just now. If you have some specific suggestions for this minor article then do please perform them yourself. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is in bold at the start of this little discussion. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep because I believe it has WP:POTENTIAL to become a better Article with a bit of time. Has steadily improved since its June 21, 2007 creation and we shouldn't be in a hurry. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of secondary coverage found. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:47, 26 September 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.