Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Conventioneers


 * 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 00:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The Conventioneers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability, no reliable sources, none found via Google.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable YouTube channel lacking reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In theory, having aired on a nationally distributed television channel would be a valid WP:NMEDIA pass — however, that distinction cannot be merely asserted, but must be reliably sourced as true. But even on a ProQuest search, I found no viable sources about this, and a television series that cannot be reliably sourced does not get an inclusion freebie just because it existed. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I feel my recent revision of the article makes it worthy of having on Wikipedia. This is a nationally run TV show that got some international exposure and was the centre of some controversy. Damnedfan1234 (talk) 00:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You relied almost entirely on primary sources, like press releases and Facebook posts and one of the hosts' own self-published website about himself and the show's "our programming" profiles on the websites of TV stations that carried it and its own self-published Indiegogo campaign. Out of 22 sources you added, 20 of them are completely unacceptable as referencing — and the only two that count for anything at all toward notability, Xtra and The Globe and Mail, don't count for very much as they both glancingly namecheck the show's existence in the process of failing to be about the show. They'd be perfectly fine if the rest of the sourcing around them cut the mustard — but they're not substantive enough to get the article kept if they're the only reliable sources in the mix. This is not how you get a television series over WP:NMEDIA — to support notability, a source has to be media coverage about the show, in sources that are fully independent of the show's own PR materials. Bearcat (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete instead as I have also found nothing better and the listed sources are simply not at the levels of confirmed convincing of significant. SwisterTwister   talk  04:52, 27 July 2016 (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.