Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lounge (TV series)


 * 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. Tone 17:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The Lounge (TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced article about a television series, whose only stated claim of notability per WP:TVSHOW is that it existed. The only sources here are its IMDb entry and the host's primary source contributor profile on Metacritic, neither of which are reliable or notability-conferring sources. As always, the notability test for television series is not just the ability to technically verify that it existed; it's the ability to show that it received reliable source coverage about it in media other than its own primary source content about itself, but there's none of that being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment as per Wikipedia:TVSHOW a TV or radio program is notable if it appears on a national channel. Not sure if this channel counts as this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:E4D0:5DAB:359:CF4D (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A show needs to be reliably sourceable as having received media coverage for appearing on a national channel to get past that notability criterion. Simply claiming it is not a notability freebie that exempts a TV show from having to have had media coverage about it. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I found three independent sources straight away: San Francisco Chronicle, UCLA website and C21media who have stories on the launch of the channel and regarding the programme. As quoted before WP:TVSHOW says TV or radio are all notable if on a national or several channels but did imaginasia actually meet this as it states on the web it was not available Across all the usa? Notability rules are becoming harder to meet as Google newspapers doesnt work anymore, and many newspapers are now taking anything over 10yrs off the net. Other editor opinions please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:E4D0:5DAB:359:CF4D (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it's not becoming harder to meet notability rules at all. For one thing, notability rules don't actually depend on whether the sources are online or not — we are allowed to cite print-only content, and there are literally hundreds of databases in which we can search for old newspaper, magazine or academic journal coverage that doesn't show up on Google. If anything, it's much easier to properly demonstrate the notability of a non-contemporary topic now than it used to be, because we have access to a much wider array of archiving tools than we did a decade ago and are less purely dependent on what does or doesn't google. The only thing that's true now is that an article's deficiencies of sourcing are easier to identify, because our access to an improved range of referencing tools means we don't have to give nearly as much benefit of the doubt to a badly sourced article anymore as we often did in the past. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * comment most archiving tools make it easier. Where please? As previously said most websites are now dropping all old content and so far I have not found any archiving website that works. I know when I was researching for a story I know was in a national paper that was not available online and I had to get a hard copy. Also eu users are blocked from seeing quite a bit of non eu evidence due to privacy laws.
 * There's no one site that's the magical fount of all media coverage worldwide. Some publications have their own proprietary archives, some contract it out to ProQuest or Questia or newspapers.com or newspaperarchive.com or Ex Libris or Gage or Ebsco or HighBeam or JSTOR or other similar sites — so you would have to figure out what publications the content you're looking for might have been in, find out which archiving provider they use, and get an account with that site. I have free access to some Canadian newspaper archives through my local public library, for example, and I have a few accounts on other databases through The Wikipedia Library — but that still doesn't mean I have unfettered access to all possible media coverage worldwide, because I'm strictly at the mercy of what publications are available in the databases I have access to. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Pretty generic overall music show on a network that really never justified its shows being broken out into their own articles.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 14:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge into Imaginasia TV page.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:00, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, nn, stub. Szzuk (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Pretty clear this show fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from secondary sources and thus WP:TVSERIES which says that absence or presence of sources is more important than the geographic range of the said program. Doing a merge to ImaginAsian is pointless considering the article is basically a list of the shows and stations. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:32, 19 November 2018 (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.