Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warriors (2009 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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Warriors (2009 TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There do not appear to be any sources that show this TV series should have its own article. No reviews outside of what appear to be blogs, no real coverage beyond "there's a new TV series and it's called Warriors" that every TV show gets. Suggest this be deleted. Harley Hudson (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, AfD is not cleanup. It's a real series, it may need better sourcing, but that doesn't rate a deletion.   Corvus cornix  talk  20:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is not whether the series exists. It obviously exists. The question is whether sources exist to support an article. You suggest that it needs better sourcing. Can you locate perhaps two or three sources that cover this show? AFD is for cleanup, meaning deletion, of articles that shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not to belabor the point, but to offer an example of a similar TV series, Human Weapon was on the same network, covered similar subject material and ran about the same number of episodes. It has sources from ABC, The New York Times, The LA Times and others. I've no questions about the existence of that article. Similar sourcing is needed for this series. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ,, , . There are several newspaper accounts of the show, though unfortunately, most of them are archived and you have to pay to see them.   Corvus cornix  talk  18:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Link 1 appears to be about the host, not the series, and the preview offers little about the series. Link 2 has independence issues since the author is a RI Guardsman, as is the series host. There are also questions as to whether the Blackanthem Military News is a reliable source. Not to mention that the entire story is two paragraphs long and pretty much says "This guy is hosting this show about this subject." Link 3 appears to be a TV listing based on the title "Thursday TV pick" and its 84 word length. Link 4 makes no mention of the series in the visible preview. I'm not seeing the sort of substantial coverage that would support the article beyond a handful of Google hits. I don't think that asking for one national-level source that is about the series is unreasonable. Harley Hudson (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Harley, why are you hating on this show? Obviously you are being outvoted, so get over and leave the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelskit (talk • contribs) 01:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, most of the sources are archived. Just because the source doesn't appear in the visible link doesn't mean it isn't there.  I did my search by looking for the name of the show and its host via Google News archives.  I stand by my claim that these and others that I did not list, are reliable sources.  And I stand by my even stronger assertion that lack of reliable sources is not a reason for deletion, just that there needs to be sources provided.   Corvus cornix  talk  01:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, reliable sources are a bedrock requirement and those sources must be verifiable. What constitutes a basis for deletion if not a lack of reliable sources? "It's real" is not a basis for an article, otherwise everything and everyone that has ever existed would qualify for an article. "Just because I can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there" is an argument best reserved for theological debates, not deletion discussions. Articles aren't retained on the assumption that somewhere there must be sources. The sources need to exist first. "Tonight on TV: Warriors" doesn't cut it and that's all these so-called "sources" amount to. Harley Hudson (talk) 05:28, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I found a "real" link to History channel about the show.Rachelskit (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A link to the History channel cannot establish the notability of a show on the History channel. Harley Hudson (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess if you want you can pick apart every single link. You're still outvoted HarleyRachelskit (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it's a good thing that AFD isn't a vote and that it's strength of argument and not sheer numbers that counts. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That relative and your opinion. The show deserves a page because it was discontinued, but popular show on the history channel. Case Closed.Rachelskit (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No subject "deserves" a page and subjects need to be supported by sources that go beyond "this exists". Try citing something that actually exists in Wikipedia policy. Harley Hudson (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have archived the sources behind paywall provided by Corvus cornix— —in case it will facilitate further analysis or prove Harley Hudson's points. Goodvac (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The the series develop, if it makes no wow, then the article should be deleted. Eduemoni↑talk↓  23:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "if it makes no wow" means. The series is not going to "develop" because it has been off the air for almost two years. One would think that any "wow" that it was going to make would have been made by now. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, This show is great and deserves an article. Plus it has many links to historical events!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachelskit (talk • contribs) 01:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The "greatness" of a show has no relevance. No subject "deserves" an article. Wikipedia articles are not rewards or entitlements. Harley Hudson (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per Corvus cornix. Sources exist to document notability. We don't require that an article have sources to be kept - only that it be sourceable. As noted, AFD is not for cleanup. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:47, 19 April 2011 (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.