Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heart of a Poet


 * 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 merge to Maureen Judge. (non-admin closure) f  e  minist  06:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Heart of a Poet

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced article about a TV series. WP:NMEDIA does not hand every TV series an automatic notability pass just for existing, but requires the series to have been the subject of reliable source coverage about it -- but even on a deep ProQuest search, every source I can actually find falls into one of three camps of non-notability: (a) glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of the poets who appeared on it, (b) glancing namechecks of its existence in "what's on TV tonight" blurbs, or (c) its own Canada NewsWire press releases about itself. There's just not enough coverage available here to support an article about it. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:01, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The notability guideline says that pilots and upfronts are not necessarily notable. It does not mention series but my inference from that is that they are notable. With approximately thirty episodes listed, I have to vote keep until a better guideline comes along. Ifnord (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * NMEDIA does mention TV series: the very first paragraph of the section on programming says that TV programs are notable if they're the subject of sufficient reliable source, and not notable if they aren't. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 21:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Bearcat, the cached ELOFFICIAL cites a John Doyle pullquote from the Globe and Mail: "“Heart of a Poet is that rare thing, a new and funky literary series.” - John Doyle, Toronto Globe and Mail." I'm guessing that was just a brief capsule mention from Doyle, a la b)? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC) ��

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 19:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Keep: Article isn't unsourced anymore. -- MovieFex (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the new references represent reliable source coverage that is substantively about the show. #1 is a PR blurb on a website that just republishes PR blurbs and doesn't write its own original content; #2 is the show's own self-published press release about itself, not third-party attention; #3 is a brief blurb about one particular poet's appearance on the show, as an "also on tonight" coda to a column that's primarily about something else otherwise unrelated to either the poet or the show; #4 is a brief namecheck of the show's existence in an article about a poet, not coverage about the show. We require reliable source coverage in which the article topic is substantively the subject of the piece, not just nominal "namechecks and press releases" verification that it existed — an article is not kept just because references are present, but rather the references do still have to be measured for their reliability, their independence of the topic's own self-promotional efforts, their substantiveness, and the degree to which the article topic is their subject rather than just getting mentioned in coverage about something else, and every single source present in the article fails at least two of those four conditions. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss the merge proposal (another potential target could be Bravo_(Canada))
 * Maybe merge to Maureen Judge? Most of the article content can be referenced, but while I can find a lot of mentions, there's a lack of in-depth coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  11:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect– To Maureen Judge. ShoesssS Talk 15:10, 1 September 2017 (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.