Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confederate (TV series)


 * 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. Clearly meets WP:GNG but may warrant a move to a different title, which is an editorial decision to be made after the conclusion of this AfD. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Confederate (TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No matter how notable or whatever happens, TV shows (either pilots or entire serieses) should not have mainspace articles until they have progressed into production. Anyone creating an article for such works is clearly violating WP:NFF and WP:TVSHOW. As of February this year, it looks unlikely that Confederate will ever enter production, therefore we shouldn't have an article for the series/pilot/whatever until it has been confirmed to have entered production. Kailash29792 (talk)  08:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see how WP:NFF can override WP:GNG, which this meets handily. Maybe it would be better titled something like Confederate TV series controversy? clpo13(talk) 08:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 08:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you kinda answered your own question. That's why we have an article called Murder of Jessica Lal (not Jessica Lal) and Killing of Cecil the lion (not Cecil the lion). It's the controversy that made the show notable, not its existence (although we have WP:CRITICISM which says, "An article dedicated to negative criticism of a topic is usually discouraged because it tends to be a point-of-view fork, which is generally prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy"). Did you even read WP:TVSHOW? It says, "Television pilots which have not been picked up to series are not normally eligible for Wikipedia articles". Confederate wasn't even picked up as a pilot. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  09:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see word "normally" in your above quote from WP:TVSHOW. Seems the abundant pre-production coverage of this show makes it not normal. WP:TVSHOW doesn't say pre-production shows should never have an article, it says they shouldn't have an article if there is not significant evidence that it has notability for reasons beyond simple confirmation of its existence. Confederate is notable beyond simple confirmation of its existence due to the controversy, subject matter and debate. It has been significantly covered in multiple reliable sources. DynaGirl (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Per WP:GNG. Significant coverage by The Guardian, USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, Vulture.com, Salon, The Atlantic etc. DynaGirl (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to draft Per Kailash29792; the consensus for WP:TV and WP:FILM is that articles should not exist until production starts, meaning that this should have been immediately moved to the draft space. The content can be included in the articles for the showrunners; the article clearly states that there it's even doubted that this series will be produced, further supporting the lack of requirement for an article. --  Alex TW 12:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep in some form. The controversy around this show received significant coverage. This is not the normal case that WP:TVSHOW is contemplating. If this content can be merged into some other appropriate article and be made a redirect from Confederate (TV series), have at it, but I can't think what article that would be. Vadder (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The showrunner's articles? --  Alex TW 00:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have to wonder, if this doesn't get picked up as a series does any of it matter? I doubt notability would be enduring. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * HBO stated they mishandled the announcement of this show so it seems that sort of thing would matter in the future to networks and showrunners regarding show promotion and announcement. If the show is actually pulled before airing due to the social media controversy, that would matter to various activists. It would be a notable case of the effectiveness of Hashtag activism. Either way per WP:NTEMP notability is not temporary. DynaGirl (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If the show is actually pulled before airing - It looks like the program was never even a starter.
 * before airing due to the social media controversy - We would need reliable sources to confirm that's what happened and we're unlikely to see that. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Really? This seems like the kind of thing that entertainment rags would lick up.  If it's cancelled, there'll be no official reason as usual, but there's about a 100% chance that we'll have people "claiming victory" based on the original social media backlash, and then there'll be news stories on the cancellation + grave dancing + attributing it to the protest.  It might not even be accurate (maybe it gets cancelled due to budget woes with the protests just a side problem), but it'll be in reliable sources.  SnowFire (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It hasn't gotten far enough to be cancelled. At the moment it's just a proposal and it looks like it's an abandoned proposal at that, with people already moved on to other projects. I doubt there will be any enduring notability with the proposal just an idea that never went anywhere. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are sufficient sources to satisfy the WP:GNG, which is all that matters here, and which WP:TVSHOW is merely a descendant of that attempts to suss out good rules of thumb for when something is likely to be notable.  Strictly as a TV show this doesn't qualify as notable of course, but it qualifies anyway due to the wide interest and media coverage of it for non-produced-episode related reasons.  See List of television series canceled before airing an episode for a list of notable topics that nevertheless failed as TV shows.  Note, that as a side issue, it may be reasonable to move this article to Confederate (proposed TV series) if it is considered REALLY important to make clear that it doesn't exist yet, but that's not really that important.  SnowFire (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Draftify At this point, all that's happened is coverage of the announcement of the series, and HBO hasn't advanced it further than that. We don't usually create articles for mere pilots (Heat Vision and Jack being the most visible exception), and we certainly don't create articles about things that are mere pitches. If this ever gets beyond that stage, then we might be able to advance this more; as-is, there's nothing here except the announcement and reactions to it.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft Per WP:TOOSOON, the show hasn't even begun production, and the fate of the show is up in the air due to D&D doing their Star Wars stuff now. Yes it has controversy, but draft unless more news is announced. I'd say summarize on D&D's articles for now.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely a notable topic covered by numerous highly reliable sources. There's no good reason to deprive readers of factual information. Just because it may never get produced does not make the topic less notable. (This was just discussed on the article's talk page, where there was also no consensus to delete.) Station1 (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep but move because this Wikipedia article as it is is falsely claiming that a TV series is forthcoming when we cannot verify that this is the case. However, because the development (which does not guarantee production) has been well-discussed, we should include that subject matter on Wikipedia but present it in the proper scope. I would suggest something like Development of Confederate and to strip the article of any elements that frame it as an actual TV series, such as the TV infobox and the TV categories. If a TV series does result, we can revise to present an authentic TV series article and have the development and related discussion content as part of its early background. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:56, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Move to draft per WP:TOOSOON – BoogerD (talk) 05:09, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. A TV series or other creative work can still be notable even if it is not produced or released if its meets WP:GNG. That, I think, is clearly the case, given the great amount of substantial, reliably sourced coverage cited in the article. The topic appears significant both as part of the oeuvre of noted TV creators David Benioff and D. B. Weiss, and for the criticism and other reactions it engendered.  Sandstein   20:24, 29 May 2018 (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.