Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stormworld


 * 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 no consensus. There is an element of WP:HEY about this, and then further disagreement (ie. lack of consensus) if the improvements are sufficient. I cannot find a consensus for any action in this, so closing with no prejudice to a renomination in the future. Daniel (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Stormworld

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article lacks reliable, independent, and non-trivial sources per WP:GNG. The only non-trivial source provided is based on a press release, while a search for other sources reveals another that reads like it was based on a press release.

A third source was found that is independent, and despite being a blog might be considered reliable due to its author possibly being considered a subject matter expert due to their work in the field - but it is a single and trivial source. 

The article as it stands is also likely to consist of considerable WP:OR and WP:Fancruft. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:TVSERIES. It aired 26 episodes in multiple nations, which is well beyond the threshold where sources likely exist, regardless of whether or not they're in the article currently. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Were you able to find any of these sources User:Jclemens? I conducted a relatively in depth search for them, but beyond the sources I provided I couldn't find anything of even possible value. BilledMammal (talk) 06:46, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What I saw was pretty much in line with what you described above--casting announcements, bare references in articles about the major cast's later careers--enough to substantiate the basics of the article, but not all the details. I don't see where I can rent or buy it, which makes me suspect it probably sucked as bad as its IMDB ratings suggest it did. Problem is, there's plenty of other things named 'stormworld' out there, and so it's hard to say definitively there's nothing there because of all the noise. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:MUSTBESOURCES. We don't keep badly sourced articles just because somebody guesses that better sources probably exist to fix the article with — WP:NEXIST only comes into play if you do the work to show that better sources definitely exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's simply not so. The obligation per WP:BEFORE is on the nominator, which he does appear to have made an effort at.  The presumption of notability for nationally broadcast TV shows is there for a reason. This one might be surmountable, but that's not the starting assumption. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The presumption of notability is there because article creators don't always make any effort to find or use the best sources available, so poorly sourced TV show articles are sometimes repairable with better sourcing than was used at first. But if somebody actively makes an effort to find better sources and comes up dry, we do not waive the requirement for better sources and keep it regardless of the lack of viable sourcing to fix it with. So yes, once notability has been questioned, the existence of keep-making sources does have to be proven rather than just idly speculated. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I ran a ProQuest search, in which I found one article that was strongly enough about this show to count for something — but that's not enough all by itself, and all I got otherwise was glancing namechecks of this show's existence in TV listings and a wire service article about Calum Worthy's later career. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly meets the criteria of WP:TVSERIES as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The criteria of WP:TVSERIES that this meets states that it is "likely to be notable", not that it is notable. Per WP:TVSERIES, we must in fact defer to the presence or absence of reliable sources to make a determination. BilledMammal (talk) 04:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The criteria of TVSERIES require reliable sourcing about the series, and nobody's been able to find any. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - minor show which may have a minor following but lacks any coverage in major sources. "Tv-eh what's up in Canadian television" is not something to hang your hat on. Even the sources that do 'exist' are just cursory summaries which do not establish notability (Australian TV source, for example, is just a blurb). Epguides isn't doing anything for me, either. TVSERIES may convince me if this was a show from the pre-internet days, but it's from 2009 - if there is nothing on the internet it's because this show just doesn't matter. And don't let the size of the article fool you - it's entirely fancruft.  ‡ El cid, el campeador  talk  17:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: User:El cid, el campeador said it well. It's less crufty now, BTW. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I added 6 references, 5 from main-stream publications, with a couple easily meeting GNG. I'm not sure why User:Bearcat only found 1 source in ProQuest, as most of these were there. I'm surprised I can't find a good Toronto Star one - but perhaps it's lost in the umpteen hits from the TV listings. Nfitz (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say I found only one source period, I said I found only one useful source that was actually counting for anything toward establishing notability, and otherwise only got glancing namechecks of this show's existence in coverage that wasn't about it in any non-trivial sense. You didn't find or add any new source that I hadn't seen: Marke Andrews' "Canadian productions get boost from U.S. strike" amounts to "a show called Stormworld is going into production, the end" in a source that's otherwise about the broad phenomenon of Canadian film and television producers trying to fill gaps in US television programming during a US writers strike; Michael D. Reid's "Acting can be dangerous game; Victoria actor has suffered his share of bumps and bruises, but says it's all part of the learning process" glancingly mentions the existence of Stormworld in an article whose subject is Calum Worthy. These sources aren't strongly enough about Stormworld to make it notable if they're the best sources you can find, because they're not saying anything substantive about Stormworld above and beyond the fact that it existed. Bearcat (talk) 11:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Glen Schaefer article in The Province is in-depth, extensive, and easily meets GNG. The shorter piece by Oswald in the WFP is also significant. The show easily meets WP:NTV. I noted a couple met GNG - I'm not sure why focus on other references. I've added a couple more foreign references, though I'm sure that despite WP:N and WP:GNG are both achieved, I doubt they meet your standards. Nfitz (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * One source can count toward GNG, but one source cannot "meet" GNG all by itself. GNG requires several sources of the calibre and depth of the Glen Schaefer article, and is not instantly passed just by the Glen Schaefer article all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Which is irrelevant given that WP:N is easily met. Also one excellent source and many mediocre sources is also good enough to meet GNG - which is merely a guideline, not a black-and-white rule. Though I'm not sure what your objections are to the Winnipeg Free Press article. Nfitz (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as N without GNG, so by definition a thing cannot simultaneously fail GNG yet meet N. The problem with the Oswald WFP piece is that it isn't substantive, and just briefly namechecks Stormworld's existence as a brief coda at the end of an article whose core subject is Better Off Ted. If Stormworld cleared GNG, that would be fine for additional sourcing of stray facts, but it does not help to make GNG happen because it isn't non-trivial coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Brave relist considering the amount of time this has been opened, but I feel like there's a chance that a definitive outcome can be reached either way with another 7 days of review.
 * Keep per Jclemens. You could probably source this with Australia's equivalent of TV Guide alone. User:力 (power~enwiki,  π,  ν ) 20:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to the improvements made by since the deletion nomination and the point raised by  above. I don't think the "TV Eh?" source should be dismissed so quickly, the website has multiple contributors, has been around for over a decade, and evidently has attracted readership based on the comments on that article and their Twitter and Facebook followings. NemesisAT (talk) 19:23, 20 July 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.