Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The XY Factor


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. A potential merger discussion can continue on the Talk if needed. I don't see a 4th relist bringing any consensus here when opinions are split on whether the sourcing is significant Star   Mississippi  13:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The XY Factor

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

Appears to not be notable, as nothing was found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2022. Previously deleted in a PROD in 2022, but REFUNDed shortly afterward. No improvements made to establish notability since then. Donald D23  talk to me  22:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Sexuality and gender,  and United States of America.  Donald D23   talk to me  22:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Orphaned article. A quick Google suggests that this is not notable and that there are other things that might even have a better claim to this article title (not necessarily a good claim, just a better one). --DanielRigal (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I've added these sources to the article:      </li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The XY Factor to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * I can't see this as significant coverage. It is reasonable for use as verification, and it does move us a little closer to demonstrating notability, but I don't think it gets us over the line. We have some one paragraph descriptions and extremely cursory reviews in TV listings, which I see as routine coverage. The book gives it a single passing mention. Admitedly, I don't have access to all the sources listed above but, unless the ones I can't see are very substantially better than the ones I can, I still feel that is only good enough to support a mention somewhere else and not a stand alone article. DanielRigal (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability says: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The sources "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail" so are sufficient to allow The XY Factor to meet the notability guideline. I was able to significantly expand the article with these sources. Cunard (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Pinging, who requested a WP:REFUND of the article. Cunard (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete I wasn't able to find any significant coverage of this series. I don't believe that any of the sources listed by Cunard (including the ProQuest sources, which I have access to) provide significant coverage; none of them are more than a paragraph long, and most of them are simple episode summaries with very little critical commentary. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * provides 133 words of coverage about the subject and provides 124 words of coverage about the subject. This meets the "significant coverage" requirement of Notability.  includes this sentence of critical commentary: "This fascinating, almost pulp, instalment of the US documentary series is frank and revealing, although there's little attempt to examine the lot of the prostitutes." Cunard (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per Deletion policy, the article can be merged/redirected to List of programs broadcast by History (American TV network), where The XY Factor is mentioned. I prefer a standalone article over a merge because it is unclear how much of the article's content can be merged to that list, which currently has only a list of the programs' titles without providing any further information about those programs. Cunard (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep I asked for a refund, as I felt that at a minimum it's a redirect to the network. Now I see how that article has been improved and referenced, I believe it should be kept! Nfitz (talk) 06:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.