Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High Fidelity (Degrassi: The Next Generation)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  14:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

High Fidelity (Degrassi: The Next Generation)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not every TV episode needs an article, especially one that there are no RS reviews for. This TV series doesn't have an individual article for every episode, so that arguement for inclusion is invalid. In addition, the plot is already covered in the article on the show. Donald D23  talk to me  00:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC) Redirect to Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 5) where the episode already has a section. Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM for a stand alone article, sources are all brief mentions and promo. This is an unneeded CFORK.  // Timothy :: talk  06:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada.  Donald D23   talk to me  00:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - FYI User:Donaldd23, this was the 100th episode anniversary. I've not looked, but given this was a flagship programme for the network at that time; and one of the most popular shows in the nation, with huge ratings, and frequent independent media coverage. I'd be very surprised if there wasn't significant media coverage of the 100th episode. Did you do a full BEFORE here? Also, I've asked before - but why wouldn't an episode title of such a huge show always be a redirect? Nfitz (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I did a BEFORE, and I did not find any reviews for this particular episode. Being the 100th episode is, indeed, a milestone, but unless there are reviews or even articles that mention it as a significant episode based on it's broadcast number, I felt a DELETE would be the best option. However, I would be open to a REDIRECT if that is what the consensus is.  Donald D23   talk to me  22:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You found nothing? In Proquest? I found incidental mentions about the 100th episode six-months ahead of time (while checking something else). And of course, I remember there was media coverage at the time. I'd rather not waste time looking for what we all know will be found. I remain concerned about your deletions of Canadian TV shows - I'm not sure you have the basic awareness of that topic to be editing in the area - or at least evaluating notability. Nfitz (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you answered why I nominated this for deletion. You said, "I found incidental mentions". Remember, to pass notability guidelines there needs to be significant, indepth coverage. "incidental mentions" are not that. So, yes, I did see small blurbs in my search, but have yet to find any indepth coverage which is needed. And, then your statement about remembering coverage and then saying you won't waste your time...that is not a reasonable arguement for keep. You must provide proof that there was coverage, and supply it yourself...not pass it off with some crystal ball statment that others will find it. Remember, WP:DIY.
 * I found incidental mentions in other stuff without even looking for something from the year that this was broadcast. I have no doubt I can find in-depth coverage - but it's just such an odd and time-wasting nomination - and I'd sooner do my taxes right now. Please don't twist my words.
 * Also, I consider your comments about my "basic awareness" to be WP:PERSONALATTACKS, which are not allowed. I suggest you strike those comments.  Donald D23   talk to me  11:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the nominations I see from you in the Canada Wikiproject fail. I don't think wondering about your familiarity with Canadian culture is a personal attack, given you have nominated high-profile shows in the past, and just nominated a major episode of one of the biggest prime-time shows ever. How long have you lived here? I certainly don't mean it to be personal. Nfitz (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I still implore you to find sources that would justify keeping this article. All your arguments are basically 'I remember coverage, but I don't wanna prove it right now' and 'almost all of your nominations fail so this one must too'. How can you not want to "waste your time" finding sources to keep this article, but you have found the time to reply to this discussion by countering every delete/redirect comment. You stated your opinion, you basically edited my comment above by inserting your comment within it (which is not how it's supposed to be done), and you denied performing what I perceived as a personal attack against me. Let the process work...if sources are found that keeps the article, great. If not, it should be deleted or redirected. Donald D23   talk to me  18:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Because it takes time and work to do a proper BEFORE; something that we've established you haven't done in the past; and clearly haven't done here, nominating 5 different articles within 6 minutes. Throwing AFDs against the wall to see what sticks isn't a BEFORE. Nfitz (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again...BEFOREs don't need to be done immediately before I nominate. I do a batch of BEFOREs and then go and nominate the articles, improve the article and remove the notability tags, or do nothing because I didn't find enough to either improve or delete. Where is the policy that I am breaking by listing these deletions all at once? Maybe you cannot do research on multiple items and then come back to Wikipedia and present your findings, but I can. Your rationale for Keep is incorrect. Maybe you should do a BEFORE and check my talk page where I have been THANKED for doing proper BEFOREs.
 * Donald D23  talk to me  21:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies, User:Donaldd23, I realise now that I was thinking of someone else. Now I look like a dick ... I'll withdraw some of my comments. I do remain concerned though why you'd think that the 100th episode of one of the biggest and longest-running shows in the nation wouldn't be notable. And now I've finished my taxes, I'll try and dig deeper. Nfitz (talk) 07:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that you didn't even find enough to redirect rather than to delete? Did you check Proquest? Nfitz (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you check that User:TimothyBlue - you've proposed a redirect to this very article! Nfitz (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The target that you are proposing is invalid, as it is located within the same article that is being discussed here. CycloneYoris talk! 00:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep I found significant sources. The first is a truly excellent 1000-word review that was published in the country's largest newspaper, just before it aired - . I'm surprised to find one from the year before it aired, discussing the filming for the episode - The third is a bit of a fluffy piece in the Winnipeg Sun. Nfitz (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Promotional  // Timothy :: talk  19:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * User:TimothyBlue, how is a review in a major newspaper - one from the largest newspaper in the country, promotional? These are regular writers, and if you search Proquest, you'll also find the CNW press releases that were made - that are very, very short compared to the articles. The press release is only 240 words, covering two programs, and (unsurprising there's more devoted to Corner Gas than Degrassi; the press release says little more than "the date not only marks the conclusion of its fifth and most successful season to date, but marks the 100th episode of the series"; and are clearly not the basis for any of the GNG articles - . Nfitz (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, I think that the new sources are acceptable, but if others don't agree than a REDIRECT to the series or season page would be a viable WP:ATD Donald D23   talk to me  20:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources found by Nfitz suggest that WP:GNG is met. Hopefully someone will be motivated to improve the article from its current state. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:13, 7 May 2023 (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.