Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up

50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up

50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

SummerPhD's prod for this television special was removed and I can't find significant coverage also. Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - As summarized above, I have been unable to find reliable sources for this article and there are none present. IMDb is not a source. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Google News Archive shows plenty of RS coverage. Programs that aired on major television networks are presumed notable per Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media, and the coverage certainly seems to bear that out. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  Note that I have added multiple RS to the article, such that it clearly meets V now. Significant coverage appears to be behind the various paywalls, but clearly appears in the Google News Archive search. Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - We need substantial coverage in reliable sources. Your first source [1] is a bare mention, "... and a host of 50 Cutest Child Stars: All Grown Up." Next, we have a TV listing. Yep, it exists, as does "Scheewe Art Workshop" (which might be notable, but not based on this). The last two, [2] and [3] are user edited. Anyone can add anything -- not reliable sources. Don't tell us there might be substantial coverage in reliable sources somewhere, show us. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, television shows are presumed notable. This is more of an episode than a show. Joe Chill (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I've got a better idea--while I find more sources, can the two of you be so kind as to take the undisputably RS that I have found, and put them into {{cite web}} format? That's assuming you're interested in improving the encyclopedia rather than just grousing about when other people try and improve it, of course. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Wow, SummerPhD, what an incredible amount of effort you expended to add {{fv}} tags when you could easily have fixed them yourself. Gotta say, no matter how childishly you respond in the AfD, you simply can't come up with an absence of sources. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I appreciate the efforts made to find and add some sources, although I think it's a tough sell to establish that the show itself is notable. There are some others that indicate that this was promoted when it was a Saturday night rerun [4] and there are indications that reporters preparing to interview a former kid star will refer to the countdown in the questioning [5]. However, I think that the original intent of the article was simply to have an excuse to list all 50 names and their rankings, and one would then click on the blue links to see what they did after they grew up and how they're doing now (#8 died last week). Remove that and what's left in the article? The countdown probably won't be lost to history-- things like that do survive on the internet, usually as part of message boards (for example [6]). Mandsford 02:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment four additional offline reliable sources, three non-trivial, retrieved via Lexis-Nexis, have been added to the article. Full citations are included if anyone would like to find them and argue that they don't represent substantial independent coverage, but failing that, notability has been clearly established. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Google news, Google books, and surprisingly even Google scholar search shows results. Looking through the news, it seems obvious a show is notable if its mentioned that many times. The article quotes many news sources which commented on the show. Dream Focus 05:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Kudos to Jclemens on finding good sources to demonstrate notability. Many TV series on wikipedia have separate articles for every episode; in contrast, this was a special feature which received individual coverage.--Milowent (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per improvements made and sources found. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep for sources found by Jclemens. Kudos to Jclemens for the excellent work! --Cyclopia^talk 11:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep - Nice improvements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Keep impressive improvements. A TV special can be just like any film or event. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I have truncated the list to the top 10. The list is copyrightable, and we cannot reproduce it in its entirety without permission. The top 10 should be permissible ala fair use, as with other subjective lists like The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for finding that and fixing it in an appropriate manner. I hadn't even thought about it. Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    • NP. I know all too well what it is to focus on one issue and overlook another.:D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment - The "countdown" style didn't seem encyclopedic. I've reversed the order, from 1 to 10. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - While the ARS have certainly piled on the Keep !votes, none of the sources added to this article prove anything other than the fact that this show actually existed. It's obvious that none of the ARS members actually examined any of the references that were added to the article, and just added their blind praise about how great the improvements to the article are. If we actually look at all of the references, we find the following:
  • Reference 1: Broken link.
  • Reference 2: A very short promotional blog, mainly about Rudy Huxtable. Not a reliable source.
  • Reference 3: An article about Candace Cameron. Mentions the show in passing once.
  • Reference 4: No link provided.
  • Reference 5: TV Guide type publication which proves that the article existed and actually aired.
  • Reference 6: TV Guide type publication which proves that the article existed and actually aired.
  • Reference 7: No link provided, but title implies that it is similar to references 5 & 6.
  • Reference 8: No link provided, but title implies that it is similar to references 5 & 6.
  • Reference 9: No link provided. Title implies that the article only proves that the article exists and nothing more.
  • Reference 10: No link provided. Title implies that the article only proves that the article exists and nothing more.

So again, we know that the show existed. Existence does not imply notability. There are still no reliable sources which establish the notability of this one-time 2-hour TV show from 5 years ago. (For reference, I was working off of this revision of the article.) SnottyWong talk 00:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)