Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Express Yourself (TV series) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Tone 21:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Express Yourself (TV series)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As per the recently WP:PRODed This Is Who I Am (short) article, this is series of non-notable TV shorts that used to air on Disney Channel. Article has been unsourced since its creation in 2007 – and I can find zero mainstream media mentions of these shorts at all after some WP:BEFORE work. It is also effectively an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list in its current form. Does not pass WP:GNG and merits deletion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - Express Yourself appeared on the Disney Channel which has historically had quite a lot of viewers, a channel which has been part of basic cable since 1983. Given the Disney Channel's high ratings among children specifically, a demographic which is less likely to write articles but which grow up and remember things from their childhoods vividly, we ought to be especially careful about deleting an article about a regularly occurring series of shorts that millions of people watched on TV. And this series was not just limited to the United States, in fact the Disney Channel Asia had its own Express Yourself following the same format, see https://tmvc.sg/project/disney-express-yourself-2-seasons/. I have found some sources: https://www.gq.com/story/shia-labeouf-disney-channel-poem, http://www.alloy.com/entertainment/disney-channel-premieres-new-express-yourself-in-response-to-haiti-disaster/, https://www.multichannel.com/news/disney-channel-asks-kids-express-yourself-about-haiti-298663, https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/found-footage-youre-watching-disney-channel-wand-id/. Those are all from the first page when I searched Google for the words "Disney Express Yourself", without quotes. I am sure there are other sources but I did not do a thorough search, that last one from The Daily Dot seems like it might meet WP:GNG, and the first one from GQ comes pretty close except maybe the coverage is not quite significant enough (not quite enough paragraphs), but The Daily Dot article is full-length, WP:GNG is met by that, and if you look at the others, you see multiple independent sources, a breadth of coverage, sustained coverage over time, establishing notability.
 * And I only did a very quick cursory look for sources, I am sure there are many more, I did not even put quotes around "Express Yourself" in my Google search and it was not even a news search, just a regular search. Anyway I think something millions of people watched on TV is inherently notable per Inherent notability, along with meeting WP:GNG. Wikipedia has many articles on individual episodes of TV shows (as one very very notable example, To Serve Man (The Twilight Zone)), which are correctly deemed notable if enough people watch them and talk about them. Well, this is an entire series of shorts, many of them featuring people who are now very famous celebrities, watched by millions of young people who would probably remember them if you showed them a clip again. That qualifies as inherent notability, at least in my personal opinion, even though I have rarely if ever watched the Disney Channel myself, am not a fan of any of the celebrities who appeared in those segments, and have no personal stake in this matter. The article could use significant editing and also better sourcing, for instance the sources I mentioned, although I assume, not all of them are good sources. Still, they are better than nothing. I would also mention that Michael J in the previous AfD debate had some good arguments for keeping this article, too, although admittedly they were similar enough to mine that I have already covered them. Yetisyny (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The only one of those that I'd consider good enough to establish notability under WP:GNG is https://www.multichannel.com/news/disney-channel-asks-kids-express-yourself-about-haiti-298663. (The Alloy one is weird – they're a publisher, so I'm not sure what that link is all about, and whether that counts as WP:PRIMARY or not – if not, it's similar to the multichannel.com one, I guess...) The others all look like incidental mentions while talking about other subjects (i.e. the actors themselves). In any case, for a series of TV shorts, there needs to be a lot of coverage to indicate notability, and what you've found here doesn't get it to that. Generally, if it doesn't get into Variety, etc. – and this doesn't – it's not notable enough. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable strand of PSA messages. All of the sources listed are promotional, basically being 'the network aired this PSA, which we shall now attempt to expand to a 500/1000 word article in order to get pageclicks regarding the actor delivering the message'. The Ad Council has the same conundrum; tens of PSAs a year, but all of which outside a few, are usually unnotable. Not everything on a kid's network needs an article here.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 14:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: Inherent notability is an essay, not a policy or guideline, and not one that implies TV programs qualify for inherent notability. WP:NTV is closer to a guideline, and says: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations [...] however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone". In this case, we have an absence of reliable sources—the multichannel source is not enough. Note that "other stuff exists" is an argument to avoid, and Twilight Zone episodes have huge amounts of coverage through critical reviews and books written about the show. (Other episode pages have been deleted before when there is a lack of secondary coverage.) — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:58, 10 September 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.