Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTV Select


 * 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. Consensus landed on keep in the end. Geschichte (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

MTV Select

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Messy and semi-advertorialized article about a television show, not properly sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. To be fair, this was a television show with multiple editions in different countries, so I'm perfectly willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived European media coverage than I've got can find better sources to salvage it with -- but as written it's referenced entirely to its own self-published content about itself, and the only thing I was able to establish in the research databases that are available to me is that the Canadian version never got any WP:GNG-worthy media coverage in Canada (all I can find is a handful of glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other things). So, again, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can find better European media coverage of the European versions to fix the sourcing with, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Because the article never gets around to telling us what it is!! Is it a countdown show or viewer request show playing music videos? And its Canadian successor, 969 (TV series), isn't any better (plays music videos and also hyped films, fashion, and games); I thought MTV Canada could only play a small amount of music videos because it was under a talk show license. Just based on a lack of clarity, a WP:TNT is needed if anyone bothers to re-create this.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This programme passes notability guidelines but the article does need tidying up. Plus I've made the description of the programme clearer in the article's introductionRillington (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as "passing notability guidelines" without reliable source coverage in independent sources. Wikipedia articles have often been filled with false claims designed to make the topic sound more notable than it really was — so notability doesn't vest in the things the article says, it vests in the quality of the referencing you can or can't find and show to properly verify that the things it says are true. But every single reference currently in the article is the show's own self-published content about itself, which is not the kind of referencing we're looking for. So since there's no such thing as notability without third party media coverage, what media coverage, in sources independent of its own self-published content about itself, are you suggesting supports notability here? Bearcat (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 04:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:NTV. Additionally, I found some coverage in google books such as:, (pages 35-36, 53, 178) There were other refs in French and coverage  the MTV Select awards in Billboard in google books. I think its pretty clear the program would pass WP:SIGCOV just from what's in the first 10 pages of google books alone. Was a WP:BEFORE done?4meter4 (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The gbooks hits are not significant coverage but mere passing mentions about the program in large academic monographs on other topics. They demonstrate little more than it existed and it was a request show. There is no other sign of significant coverage in the article or in searches. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 14:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability isn't demonstrated by the sources, being only primary sources and nothing from independent reliable sources. It's not a badly written article so if some independent secondary sources can be found and added i would change my vote. Vanteloop (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC) Following the improvements and sources added by User:Alalch Emis I am changing my opinion to Keep Vanteloop (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, see sources 1, sources 2, sources 3. The topic is notable and the article is well-written but needs to incorporate some of the above. Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , dunping gsearch links and expecting the other editors to sort through them to find evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources is not a persuasive argument for notability. Please specify which specific references you believe meet those criteria. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 06:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I do not have to go through the links further and I apologize, but I maintain that the material on this page should be kept. The references exist, they only need to be sifted through by someone who has the time to improve the article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Notability not demonstrably established with significant coverage in secondary sources. Avilich (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Crossing out vote, no opinion on recent expansion. Avilich (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The usefulness of the provided sources has been contested: further analyses of their contents would be useful. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NTV -- this is a program that aired on a television station with a broad regional or national audience, and there are sources about it that make it clear what it was, and enable inclusion of some encyclopedic content; this is sufficient to pass the SNG. TNT isn't needed, the article isn't that bad. — Alalch Emis (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * please re-read WP:Notability_(media), of which the referenced NTV is a part: A media outlet is presumed notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable and independent of the subject. ...Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The only sources so far advanced in the article or this discussion are "trivial or incidental", being passing mentions at best. There has been no sign of significant coverage in independent reliable sources advanced by anyone. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 17:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with, the 'sources' provided above are just google searches - they don't demonstrate notability as far as I can tell. The searching I have done shows that it is mentioned in passing at best. If there are reliable secondary sources that mention this show in a notable way I will change my opinion Vanteloop (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The book search provides a couple of usable sources:, and there's a German one The program is noted in media studies as an example of an interactive program. Edit: basically, 4meter4, already laid out the keep case. I don't think that at least the book sources are "trivial or incidental". — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The books you list, which already brought up, are (as previously noted) trivial mentions. The most expansive is the German book that translates to "Media convergence and subject formation: media interactions using the example of music television and the Internet" and all its references are to MTV Select as being one of a number of video request programs. There are 3 paragraphs in a 315 page academic monograph which is certainly not significant coverage by any reasonable estimation. It does not provide and analysis of the requests, history of the program, indication of impact, or any other substantive information on the program. It is, in point of fact, a perfect example of what not to do in AfD discussions: simply count Gsearch results without actually characterizing them.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree that these aren't significant. It doesn't matter at all that it's an x number of pages from y, three pages of text is quite in-depth already. And the other book isn't trivial either. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to wonder how well you're reading these supposed significant mentions. The German one isn't three pages, it's less than three paragraphs. The other book isn't even that. The full extent of the mention of this program is literally a sentence fragment listing this program as one of many that allowed viewer requests. Please see WP:SIGCOV: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail. None of your references approach that definition. Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 21:17, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Paragraphs, pages, whatever, three paragraphs can still be plenty in-depth, and material of such length has been considered SIGCOV innumerable times. These sources address the topic somewhat directly and note how the program works in what I'd say is above-average technical detail. An interesting aspect of the subject from a wider social standpoint is considered in a theoretical framework. You can stop with the admonitory tone btw, it's fine to disagree. — Alalch Emis (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There are definitely more in-depth sources and I'm working on the article. For example: "Where's the beat?", Thu 11 Nov 1999, The Guardian — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, look, I made cool improvements to the article based on in depth coverage in The Guardian! (diff) — Alalch Emis (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:Alalch Emis on this point.


 * Comment: I agree with User:Alalch Emis in the above discussion. Additionally, the Guardian links now added appear to demonstrate WP:Notability and directly establish the conditions for this commitment in the OP: "I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can find better European media coverage of the European versions to fix the sourcing with, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be considerably better than this." Caleb Stanford (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NTV, WP:GNG and WP:HEY. Kudos to Alalch Emis for demonstrating the notability of the subject. --Cavarrone 17:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, improved by Alalch Emis since the last relist. NemesisAT (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2021 (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.