Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concrete TV


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Concrete TV

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Currently unsourced except for IMDB. Searches reveal that there were sources in the 1990s but nothing now than can be accessed. Probably needs somebody with access to a newspaper library in Manhattan to trawl through old papers. Without that, it fails WP:GNG and for the moment it is probably better to delete and re-create later if sources can be found and quoted.  Velella  Velella Talk 14:58, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and New York.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts,  and Sexuality and gender.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  19:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: I was able to hunt down a piece in New York Magazine that talks about the show and confirms that Rolling Stone named the show as the best show of 1996. I was also able to find a few other articles from noteworthy sources.--LadybugStardust (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete: I can't see that WP:SIGCOV is met. Most of the references are the official source of the subject. Boing Boing is not reliable per WP:RSP. The New York Magazine is only a passing reference. That leaves the High Speed Productions source which I can't confirm whether there is in depth coverage in that or not and the New York Press source. Not enough. TarnishedPathtalk 02:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: Subject is definitely notable, as evidenced by the Google Books link cited above, but the article needs better sourcing.--2601:345:0:52A0:E165:4C72:14FB:3B9A (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  thetechie@wikimedia  :  ~/talk/  $  01:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow, did you seriously follow me here just so you could vote against me out of spite? It's too bad that Wikipedia doesn't have a Barnstar award for being a petty, passive-aggressive troll.--LadybugStardust (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on whether they're already in the article or not, so I fail to understand the nominator's distinction between "searches reveal that there were sources in the 1990s" and "but nothing now than can be accessed" — if you have searched and found that sources did exist, then it doesn't matter whether you can personally access them or not, and the fact that they exist is good enough. If you really want to help, then certainly list what you found on a talk page so that a willing party who does have the ability to find said sources knows what you saw, but if you did find sources there's no debate left to be had. And yes, some of the referencing here is to the show's own website — but since all of those are being used to cite quotes from reliable source media outlets about the show, literally all that has to be done to resolve those is revising them so that they're citing the original content instead of the primary source reprint of it. And since we do not have a rule that all of our footnotes have to be googlable web pages, but rather we are allowed to cite print-only content without hotlinking it anywhere, the fact that you can't find another web page still doesn't matter either: literally all you have to do is locate the title of the original piece, by any means possible, and abracadabra. For my part, I've already found two more sources that weren't already in the article, including being able to knock out one of the primary sources by locating the original content. Bearcat (talk) 13:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, sourced, and per Bearcat. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Both the article's references and what's been said here make a strong case for notability. Gedaali (talk) 08:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable from the references given. Contributor892z (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2024 (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.