Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shows produced by IM Global Television


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

List of shows produced by IM Global Television

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:TOOSOON list of every single television project in development at a television production firm, of which only one to date has actually gone to air. The problem here is that just because a series is in the development pipeline does not necessarily mean it's ever actually going to come out the other end as a thing viewers will actually get to watch: projects can be delayed or abandoned entirely, or turn out to be so bad that no channel or network at all actually wants to buy them. Accordingly, the standing rule per WP:TVSHOW is that a TV series doesn't get an article the moment it's announced as being in production, but rather Wikipedia editors have to wait until the show has a confirmed premiere date -- and the same principle should accordingly apply to lists of the television series: until the "network" and "original running" columns can both be completely filled in with confirmed data rather than "TBA", a list is not appropriate yet. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

And yet that one series which is Ice was not originally made by them. Instead the company made an investment in the series and owns worldwide rights alongside eOne. IM barely has anything out and for the most part it's been nothing but this is in development or this is in development. And even if the productions are in "development" shouldn't they at least be kept track of? I barely hear anything about the projects past the developmental line. Interestingthing (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  17:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  17:31, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge into IM Global. The company has only invested in the series. Mewtwowimmer (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if the list per say was merged into the main IM Global page. Really it's up to you though. As far as I'm concerned, the only Wikipedia article I linked was just Ice, other than that. There isn't any other Wikipedia articles I've linked. All it really is, is citing Deadline, Variety and or Hollywood Reporter links (depending on the source), giving information and the rest is history. I've done this several times before on other pages and it won't be the last time I do so. So again, if you wish to say move the list to the IM Global page it's fine by me. I still want to keep track of all the shows that are in development. I do wish though, these companies were better in announcing that the project is dead depending on what it is. Interestingthing (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete One original series went to air. That's it; the entire rest of the list is proposed, and I'm not holding my breath most of them come to air. Like most series with a number of international producers/financiers, this entire 'company' seems only designed to throw up a closing credits vanity card among twelve of them that'll blur like most of companies of the same ilk because they threw money at them, and doesn't do anything involving the actual physical production of a series or film. Also, a variety of sources rather than just Deadline.com's rip-and-read of IM Global's press releases turns this into basically a WP:PROMO article using Deadline as a cover for 'it's notable I have a source' for every series. IM Global is also an WP:ADVERT mess, and a merger shouldn't be considered.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "A variety of sources rather than just Deadline.com's rip-and-read of IM Global's press releases'" uh.. I didn't rip from the IM Global website. No instead I went through the news section of Google, looked up IM Global TV, started from the moment the company was formed, then went month by month of the past few years up now. I even looked through my history and for the most part I did exactly what I said. And even the main page is a mess? If that's the case then both pages should be gone. Interestingthing (talk) 01:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But you only used Deadline to source the entire article. That's not acceptable; we require a diversity of sources and an article is on shaky ground if it's only sourced to a few articles from the same source. And I say rip and read because Deadline mainly takes what's in the PR and creates a story out of that if they aren't reporting it on their own.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * True, I did only source from Deadline for the page so my fault on that. But if somehow the list gets cleared from being deleted, I'd be more than happy to change certain sources around and I'll try to keep it in mind going forward including many other pages I have done as well. Deadline is usually a primary source to me and I go on there all the time and get notifications from them alongside Hollywood Reporter and Variety regularly on the latest news. Interestingthing (talk) 03:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- "listcruft" of nn titles. Not encyclopedically relevant. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 21 May 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.