Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Setlist TV


 * 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. AfD is not a vote. The strength of arguments dictates the weight given to them, and simply saying WP:ITSNOTABLE is not sufficient. The concerns of the nominator have neither been addressed nor disproved, and it has not been shown that the subject of this article passes WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Setlist TV

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable community-access television program. No significant coverage available to indicate notability. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This program is of note. The program broadcasts on two major cable networks in a major metropolitan city. It is a music performance program which featurs musical acts of note. Acts who already have wiki pages, etc. This program received thousands of television and web viewers each week. The page is still being edited to include citat--Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)ions, references, links, etc.--Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC) — Atomicsherbert0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please note, as you search for sources, that Facebook pages and Youtube videos are generally not considered reliable sources. Evidence of significant coverage from independent sources will be needed.  I was unable to find any evidence of such coverage.   WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We are living in a digital age. Hence the existence of Wikipedia. You may not view youtube & facebook as reliable sources but these links represent the artists, creatos, crew, and producers involved with the production of a cable television & web program. The point of the program that this wikipedia page represents is that it operates outside of normal conventions. It brings light to established, respected and accredited artists while operating in a manner that conforms to the DIY lifestyle the show represents. More citations will be added as they become available. The program and thus the page will continue to grow, so if the page is deleted now it can't grow. If you want to delete it go ahead. Or you can let it exist as it is and as things expand so to will the wiki-page. If you feel the need to delete this page for lack of substantial coverage elsewhere you are contributing to the lack of coverage and exposure. I'm done. --Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The program may become notable in the future, or it may not.  As of today, it is not, as evidenced by the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, and therefore, it does not meet the criteria for inclusion at Wikipedia.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said maybe it will in the future. You claim youtube isn't a viable source, well go look at the linked youtube page and see the THOUSANDS of views. --Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that there is no significant coverage for this program. And Atomicsherbert0, I question if you actually read WP:RS. Anyone can upload something on YouTube; but merely existing doesn't make something notable for Wikipedia standards. (See also WP:UNRELIABLE.) Erpert  Who is this guy? 19:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I have read it. I'm not saying that uploading something onto youtube deems it notable. I'm just referencing the fact that there is viewership.--Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Good job guys! try taking a look at the thousands of wikipedia pages with even less citations, less impact, less information, and less reason to have a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicsherbert0 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: the existence of other poor articles on Wikipedia has no bearing on the decision to keep or delete this article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

KEEP views haven't been fixed. views & comments available. television broadcasts happen. An online user contributed site shouldn't be damning a viable contribution based upon their views of other online user contributed site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicsherbert0 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, per WP:RS etc. People may watch this stuff, but we've not got proof of it. (Viewer figures at online sites are notoriously liable to fixing. I am not accusing anyone here of that, but the practice of this across the internet damns everyone's statistics.) Peridon (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say these figures had. I said figures like this can be. They are not reliable by Wikipedia's rules. If you don't like Wikipedia's rules, you can campaign to get them changed, comply with them, or go to AboutUs and LinkedIn where the question will not arise. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

KEEPits a valid program and has featured some bands I love. I know of dozens of folk who watch it weekly. Just because it isn't your cup of tea Ice-T fans doesn't mean you should delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.101.107 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — 24.168.101.107 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Equally, 'I like it' isn't a valid reason for keeping. See WP:ILIKEIT (for both ways round.) Peridon (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

seriously just keep the page. is it really that big of a deal? i looked at the page. i see citations, links, references, its a credible program, showcases worthwhile well known musical acts, broadcasts in a major city (NYC), and is a well made program. -JT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.101.107 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Double "keep" !vote struck out.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 09:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought this "wasn't a vote"?--Atomicsherbert0 (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't. I wrote "!vote", not "vote" (note the exclamantion point in front of the word).  Erpert  Who is this guy? 16:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

All citations given are valid & relevant. Verify your thoughts prior to challenging citations. Names & info are on sites that are cited and linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomicsherbert0 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It was already explained to you that YouTube, Facebook and blogs are not reliable sources. This seems to be another example of someone not getting it because they don't want to get it.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 08:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Recent citations added by attempt to bolster the notability of the people involved with this project, not the project itself.  Even if such references did denote such notability (which they do not), that does not make this television series notable.  This series can only be verified as notable if sources can be found to prove it, which they have not.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

nice try epert--24.168.101.107 (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 18:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - covered in Punknews and on the local CBR station. KVIKountry (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The only coverage for Setlist TV that I could find at Punknews was a user comment in response to an article on Screaming Females; a user comment made by SetlistTV themself. This is advertising, not significant coverage.  And I'm not sure what "CBR" refers to.  There is no radio or television network in the New York City area with that designation.  Could KVIKountry please be more specific (with links if possible) as to this coverage?  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:18, 10 January 2011 (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.