Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Today's Special


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 03:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Today's Special

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable television show. Cannot find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It also easily passes WP:TVSERIES. T.C.Haliburtontalk nerdy to me 06:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are sufficient references to meet WP:GNG. What steps did you take to find references? I found these rather quickly:
 * http://torontoist.com/2011/02/todays_special_is_the_public_archive/
 * Fanfare - Volume 9, Issues 1-2 - Page 303 (https://books.google.ca/books?id=4pQ6AAAAMAAJ&q)
 * http://cinemacanada.athabascau.ca/index.php/cinema/article/viewFile/4010/4046
 * Strong Keep It was a hugely well-known children's show in Canada that aired for 6 years. I found links that mention the show with little effort at the websites for The Toronto Star, Maclean's Magazine, and as expected, the TVOntario website.  The lengthy amount of time that the show aired on TVOntario enables it to pass the standards of WP:TVSERIES easily. Drpickem (talk) 10:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The sourcing present in the article as written ain't great, admittedly, but the nominator clearly didn't try very hard to find sources beyond a cursory Google search — this is easily source-improvable, and passes WP:TVSERIES handily. And the standards for TV series are different from the standards for a BLP of an individual person; for an inanimate topic, it merely needs to be possible to improve the sourcing, which it is. I do agree with the nominator's parallel nom of the episode list, because it's not actually useful as constituted — but that's an entirely separate matter from whether we should have a base article about the series itself. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2015 (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.