Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hacker Time


 * 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. henrik • talk  14:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hacker Time

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG, as I cannot find any independent reliable sources about this TV show.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as meets WP:TVSHOW. It's a nationally-televised show as evidenced by the source provided (BBC may not be independent in this case but they are considered reliable). ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia's notability guideline requires that reliable sources independent of the article subject notice the subject. In this case the only sources that have been provided or that I have been able to find are from BBC and not independent.  I can not find anything that shows any reliable sources have provided any coverage of this TV show.  WP:TVSHOW only says that a nationally televised show is likely (emphasis mine) to be notable, not that it is notable.   GB fan 01:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - As stated above, no third party sources stating notability. Calabe1992 01:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - no independent sources that I can find. Karl 334   ☞ TALK to ME ☜  15:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep because although there is not "enough reliable sources" as you may put it, it has recieved significant blog and fan coverage which does show it is very, very popular and worth writing an article about. Just type 'Hacker Time CBBC' into Google or whatever search engine you use and you will see what I mean. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: Androzaniamy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.  Eagles   24/7   (C)  19:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Blogs and "fan coverage" does not matter in determining the notability of a subject. If this television show were truly as popular as you say, it would have significant coverage in the media.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is that the people who watch it and appreciate its great entertainment are not even old enough to make a new article about it on newspapers. Journalists like to write about stuff that appeals to them and their readers and as far as I know, not many children read newspapers regularly. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your logic is incorrect. There are many articles on Wikipedia about children's shows that meet our guidelines and policies.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And how many of them, may I ask have newspaper reports because of controversial issues or have their own merchandise? Androzaniamy (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The majority, I'd assume. It's not relevant to this discussion, however, per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't swear, my point is that as this is a farly new TV series if you give it time and not come to hasty conclusions you will see things from my point of view. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't make articles about things that in time will be notable. They need to be notable first then we have articles about them.  GB fan 19:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It is notable. Please don't delete it took me ages to make and has plenty of sources. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it is not worthy enough for an article. Don't be a deletionist, it isn't helping Wikipedia. Androzaniamy (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between notable according to you and notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. Generally topics are notable only if someone can show that independent reliable sources have provided significant coverage of the topic.  There are some exceptions to that but TV shows is not among the exceptions.  Multiple people have looked for this coverage but have failed to find it.  You have even said that you haven't found anything.  In what way does this show meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia.  GB fan 17:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no difference between what I think is notable and what the Wikipedia policy suggests so please stop lying and typing in swear words that I have removed for obvious reasons as there is no need to swear here, especially in front of children. Androzaniamy (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If it meets Wikipedia notability guidelines please explain how it does that. GB fan 17:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:TVSHOW says it all. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No it does not. As I explained above WP:TVSHOW says that nationally aired TV shows are  likely to be notable it does not say that they are notable.  It also goes on to say "In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone."  The guideline Notability says "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not excluded for other reasons. We consider evidence from reliable independent sources such as published journals, books, and newspapers to gauge this attention. Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."  So based on these and that fact that everyone involved in this discussion agree that no independent reliable source exist this TV show does not meet the notability guidelines.  GB fan 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Who cares Be bold! We're supposed to expand Wikipedia not make it far too exclusive for its own good. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We have policies here on Wikipedia, and if you are not willing to abide by them, you may leave at any time.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  20:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I get you don't want me here but look at the fifth pillar of Wikipedia and you will see what I mean. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * So do you now agree that it doesn't meet the notability guidelines and that you feel we should ignore the rules? GB fan 06:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Not all just one which is restrictive ->CLICKIgnore all rules<-CLICK. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Androzaniamy, would you be able to provide citations in the article or at least links to said newspaper reports? I believe the show is notable as a nationally-televised programme but I take the point that more independent references are needed. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 18:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There are no newspaper reports that I know of or even mentioned. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent sources and also it fails WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - GNG is a real issue here, as well as no Independant sources. If those two are established, there is no reason why to not keep, but I have my doubts.. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 10:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep of course, per Ignore all rules if nothing else. If a nationally aired television program, viewed by millions, isn't notable per some notability policy, then there is something wrong with that policy. --GRuban (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: leaning towards keep per GRuban's observation. But, are there no rating services for BBC? Certainly somewhere there's a breakdown of the number of viewers of a program.  I found ratings on tvguide.uk (not the correct url) which gave it a 'rating' but no explanation about their rating system. If there are 'millions of viewers', shouldn't there be some site that reports that info?   Wikipelli  Talk   22:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

'Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. The principle of the rules is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment.' From WP:COMMONSENSE. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per GRuban. I tried to find independent sourcing for the show and didn't find anything beyond a bevy of blog-type coverage and one brief mention in a UK newspaper. That said, I can't shake the notion that this should be kept per WP:IAR. I wish I could offer a better policy-based argument. I'm going to keep looking. I will say that WP:TVSHOW does suggest that the article's topic is likely to be notable, and while it (as usual) suggests that standard notability definitions are the more salient basis for any decision, the examples given are very dissimilar from this show (e.g. a national television program being "cancelled too quickly to garner any media attention"). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  19:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Any show that has millions of viewers is automatically notable by way of common sense. The suggested guidelines are there to help decide what should be here, but they aren't absolute laws.  Wikipedia is not a moot court. WP:BURO  If a rule gets in the way of improving the Wikipedia, then ignore it.  WP:IAR.   D r e a m Focus  22:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, simply put this fails WP:GNG, the claims made that it has millions of viewers are not verifiable and if made in the article would be removed. Mt  king  (edits)  23:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a spot-check jaunt through this and found a few Hacker Time hits in the Top 10 Weekly Programme lists on CBBC, generally averaging (by my count) ~380,000 viewers. So, sure, the "millions of viewers" bit is as difficult to back up as any unverified claim is, but in the context of UK children's television the show appears to have a fairly strong audience. I also note that the show's "star," Hacker T. Dog, is something of a UK children's television celebrity (apparently). Again, I'm not sure if anything that I've just written points us towards some glowing beacon of pure policy-based inclusion, but it's food for WP:IAR thought...in my opinion, anyway. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  05:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ 's source above was the ratings report I was looking for. I only found the show in the top 10 for the week of Oct. 3, 2011, but it's enough for me.   Wikipelli  Talk   12:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The views argument is not a solid one. If it were, we'd have many, many articles on YouTube videos which attained a certain number of views. It's also the reason Shaycarl, who has many subscribers on YouTube, has had his article deleted eight times.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree it's not about views. It's about your initial suggestion that the article should be deleted for lack of independent, reliable sources. Well, BARB is an independent reliable resource. I'm not arguing keep because of the # of views, I'm addressing your concern about sources.   Wikipelli Talk   18:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it's still not "significant coverage" by independent sources, as required by GNG.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG says This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Its a guideline not a policy, a suggestion not an absolute law. And these are confirmed viewers.  YouTube is a totally different situation since someone can make a bot to hit reload a few million times, no way to tell its the same guy or just a lot of people that have the same IP address as some major companies sometimes give out to their millions of customers.   D r e a m Focus  18:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Common sense tells me that a television show that only generates 300,000 views in a week and does not have any independent sources written for it is not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The source satisfies my reading of WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Subject is mentioned directly and in detail.   Wikipelli Talk   18:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we still referring to this? This listing of programmes and the number of views they received in a week?  Eagles   24/7  (C)  18:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's what I'm referring to. I've included it in the article as well.   Wikipelli Talk   19:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You're saying the subject is "mentioned [...] in detail" in that source? You must be mistaken.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I could be, not sure that I must be... :) The subject is mentioned and the detail is that during the week of October 3-October 9 the show had the 10th highest viewership on CBBC and that the number of viewers was approximately 328,000. Unfortunately, the page that actually presents that figure is not linked. I'm not sure how a page such as that should be linked in WP, but it's there... with what I consider to be sufficient detail.   Wikipelli  Talk   19:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth (nothing?), I'm voting Keep and I definitely don't think my ratings find helps this pass WP:GNG. It's not substantial coverage; it barely passes as "coverage." It does, however, speak to a decent-sized audience (certainly nowhere near massive), given the nature of its market and audience type. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  04:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlieEchoTango  ( contact ) 05:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: As we saw in Eagles' nomination at Articles for deletion/Stacked (TV film), tracking down sources for British TV shows can take a little legwork. If you rule out BBC as a source showing notability since its a BBC show (via CBBC), you run into an inherent problem of the British media - the BBC is something like 30-40% of the TV market.  Google news archives are not great on British papers either, I will see what I can find.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">has<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">spoken  21:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per GRuban. Basically, one of the statements at WP:N, Popularity ≠ Notability,  only partially  represents common sense, and I think no longer has consensus  in all areas. In general, I would say that Popularity does prove Notability. We have very strong consensus to recognize this    in one case, popular music, where we accept charting position as proof of notability, and I can see no intrinsic reason why it should not apply to all forms of artistic endeavor aimed at a wide audience.  However, even in those fields, Popularity is not required for Notability --unpopular things can be notable also if they're important enough in in other ways and there are sources to show it.  Whether this extends to such things as commercial products might not yet have consensus, though I would advocate for it in every field where it's applicable.  DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep This show is notable and can be found has received significant coverage to meet the General Notability Guide. All this article needs is more reliable sources which can be easily found. Xpion ( talk ) 08:52, 14 February 2012 (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.