Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Rotic (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   no consensus. Discussion leaned towards keep. Sources are lacking, but the prevailing view that sources to show notability typically are found for this type of program, giving it a pass this time seems reasonable. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

E-Rotic (TV series)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article was double-Prodded. I prodded it myself, owing to an inability to track down sources. User Atama prodded as well earlier today, citing an editor COI as well as an inability to track down sources. Prod was contested shortly before it would have expired. Given that two users have been unable to find independent sources on the topic (partly, as I noted before, due to issues with the term) I feel that the article needs to go. Tyrenon (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - I deproded the article on the basis that TV shows that air on real networks are almost always considered notable. Thus, at minimum, discussion is warranted.  See Playboy website to confirm this is a real show.  I strongly suspect there is 3rd party coverage of the show, but as pointed out the generic nature of the title makes searching difficult. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not aware of any notability guideline that states that a TV show is notable if it airs on a "real network". The lack of 3rd party coverage, in fact, is an indicator of the lack of notability. --  At am a chat 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no official guideline, but per WP:OUTCOMES "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are notable." Playboy TV is certainly a national network.  Although as pay-per-view, I suppose you could say it isn't a major one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - And that page directs you to WP:NME which states,
 * "In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a purely local talk radio program can be notable enough for inclusion if it played a role in exposing a political scandal that resulted in the impeachment of the city's mayor — and a national television program can be non-notable if it got cancelled too quickly to have garnered any real media coverage." --  At am a chat 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, my primary reason for de-PRODing was that shows are almost always notable so deleting one wasn't "non-controversial," IMO.  Borderline cases (like this one) should be decided at AfD, PROD is intended for clear cut cases "where no one would object".  I am open to either outcome, but lean towards keep per the AfD precedent that nearly all nationally broadcast shows are notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My inclination towards dumping is the lack of reliable third-party sources. The problem with the article as it stands is a lack of said sources and a very real difficulty finding said sources due to term confusion.  A merge wouldn't be out of the question either, but absent a sourcing fix deletion seems to be the way to go for me.Tyrenon (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - ThaddeusB, that is not a good reason to de-prod an article. While an article can be de-prodded for just about any reason, assuming that the removal of the prod tag isn't from vandalism, advice given to Proposed Deletion Patrollers (such as myself) at WP:WPPDP says that you should not de-prod an article because you "think" it could be controversial. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, you certainly didn't, I'm just saying that if you personally don't object to the deletion and you don't see evidence that anyone else objects to it, by definition it's not controversial. Anyway, if people "vote" to keep the article and it's kept, what's done is done, but nobody (not even DGG whom I greatly respect) has given a single reason how this article satisfies even the most basic requirements for articles in Wikipedia. --  At am a chat 17:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. As cited, the guidelines we have state "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are notable."  I call attention to the "by a major network" bit.  If this were ABC, CBS, NBC...or even any of a raft of major cable networks (MTV, HBO, etc.), I would say that this qualifies.  However, while Playboy TV may be a national network, I will argue that it doesn't quite cut it as a "major network".  On a 'bigger' network I'd be more inclined towards a keep, but absent that and absent sourcing in the article I'm sticking with deletion.Tyrenon (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and source. Whail a merge to Playboy TV might have been worth considering per WP:ATD, the article looks to be able to meet guideline with just a little effort. It is easier to simply delete something than take the trouble to fix it, but improving the article improves the project.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please see WP:GHITS. And by the way, there's nothing stopping you from editing the article right now, so if you think we're taking the "easy" way out, why don't you go ahead and improve the article, adding reliable sources and showing that there's merit to keeping it? Or at least just find some. That's the whole reason for this AfD after all, and without them the page still violates WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. --  At am a chat 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Knowledge" can be defined in quite a number of ways, including that of "encyclopedically significant information". I define  "encyclopedic
 * Per the policy WP:DEL/WP:ATD: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." So thank you for pointing me to an essay and telling me that I could spend the time to fix the article. You could too, and your welcome help would be per policy. If an article can be improved, it should be. Thank you for re-affirming my keep vote.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article isn't bad, althought sources would be desirable. Of course, the name of the show hinders attempts to find them, so their absence is understandable. Users who have issues with importance or notability with the subject matter can vote with their back buttons and should kindly refrain from destroying the work of their fellow laborers. :) Abyssal (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sources aren't desirable. They're required. Please see WP:LOSE as to your latter comment, that's not in any way a justification for keeping the article. And by the way, this isn't a vote. --  At am a chat 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All this wikitalk is hooey, if you read the policies, you'll find that a lot of them are self contradictory, and irrelevant anyway because of WP:IAR. The only sensible standard to go by is whether the removal of the article makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia or not. Since the stated goal of the project is to present the sum of all human knowledge, the removal is clearly in contradiction to our agenda. Abyssal (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Knowledge" can be defined in quite a number of ways, including that of "encyclopedically significant information". I define  "encyclopedic" rather broadly but it does have a bottom. This show is above it, as we have consistently decided all network shows are, & I therefore would say keep; a similar show on a local station would not be encyclopedic content. DGG (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The purpose of this project is not to list the sum of all human knowledge, else we would be permitting WP:MADEUP, WP:NEO, and all sorts of other things in here.  If our purpose was to index all human knowledge, then we would not have WP:N guidelines.  I can see an argument for all independently verifiable and encyclopedic knowledge (although fighting over what "encyclopedic" means is inevitable, it is at least a good concept to shoot for), but this is not the place for all human knowledge to go.  The simple fact is that there do need to be minimal standards for inclusion here, and in that vein generally comes at least one source not linked to the author(s) or institution(s) behind a project.Tyrenon (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2009 (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.