Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paranormal Revenge


 * 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 Draftify‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to allow for addition of more sources over time and other improvements. RL0919 (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Paranormal Revenge

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

Could not find any reliable sourcing or reviews to meet WP:GNG. Only sourcing in article that is not a press release or blatant SPS is some guys blog. Jumpytoo Talk 18:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Paranormal,  and Canada. Jumpytoo Talk 18:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Delete Draftify A TV show that has just been released. Sources are largely press releases and commercial listings, no reviews or analysis. It is simply WP:TOOSOON (also see WP:NYF) to have a standalone article. Maybe a mention at CTV Sci-Fi Channel for the moment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep "Paranormal Revenge" is produced by Sphere Media, which is Canada's third-largest independent producer. Additionally, the series premiered on the CTV Sci-Fi Channel, a national cable channel, indicating a level of notability. According to WP:TVSERIES, "in most cases, a television series or season is not eligible for an article until it has been confirmed by reliable sources to have started filming". This show is confirmed to have started filming and has actually already started to air on a national network. There are references to external coverage from reliable sources which discuss the show and its details, thus satisfying the criteria of significant coverage in reliable sources. According to WP:NTVNATL, "Generally, an individual television program is more likely to be notable if it airs on a network of television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broader regional or national audience." This show has aired on a national cable network. If the argument is made that the article on "Paranormal Revenge" is not yet ready for standalone notability, a more constructive approach would be to redirect the article to the CTV Sci-Fi page where information about this series can be housed temporarily or permanently, instead of outright deletion. This is in line with the WP:INSTEAD guideline, which suggests redirection as a preferable alternative to deletion when applicable. The Wikipedia community encourages the improvement and expansion of articles rather than deletion. There's potential for more information to be added to the article as the series continues and receives more coverage. Similar to other television series articles on Wikipedia, this article serves as a comprehensive source of information about the series, its episodes, cast, and crew. This aligns with the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia and serves the interest of the public seeking information on "Paranormal Revenge". Informative Value: The article provides a detailed synopsis, information about the broadcast, production details, and streaming platforms, which collectively provide a well-rounded understanding of the series to readers. These points collectively argue for the retention or redirection of the "Paranormal Revenge" article in adherence to the platform's guidelines on notability and deletion.T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 21:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:GNG and any narrower notability definition. References are PR material. IMBD may never be used as a reference 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * After due consideration I will accept Draftify as an outcome, though my preferred option remains deletion. The creating editor does not appear to understand how to verify notability even if they can quote chapter and verse of the verification criteria. That makes me question the wisdom of returning this to Draft. Deletion at AfD provides a small safeguard (speedy deletion if a new article is substantially the same as the deleted on) against the re-creation of material, whereas draftification does not provide the same protections 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I share your concern. I believe if you are now 'watching' the original article, any recreation post-draftification will show up on your watchlist. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @LuckyLouie That it is in my watchlist does not mean I will see it. Some 40,000 other items are there, too. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Draftify - Hmmm. Three concise guideline-based Delete arguments including the nom by experienced editors, and a long ramble by a single-purpose editor.  TCH has made the case.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify. Inclusion isn't impossible here, but it isn't automatic either — the thing that TChaliburton is missing is that a TV show has to be reliably sourced before it passes the inclusion bar for TV shows, but this isn't. The rule isn't "as soon as the show has started airing an article has to exist even if its sourcing is scheisse" — it's "even after a show has started airing an article still can't exist until the show has passed WP:GNG on reliable source coverage". Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify because WP:TOOSOON. Save all the content offline or WP:DRAFT and republish when the series has generated the necessary additional qualifying references.  5Q5 &#124;&#9993;


 * 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.