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)

• Thanks for pointing out that the Google Books link in #1 had become broken in an intermediate update. I was able (as were you of course, but you didn't) to go back to where it was originally added, find the correct link, and update the footnote accordingly. As far as your criticisms of 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10, please see WP:PAYWALL. Just because you don't feel like expending the effort and/or money to get the articles in electronic or print format, that isn't particularly anyone's problem but yourself. Note especially that specific commentary and criticism about the special are attributed, with direct quotation, to these offline sources (numbers 4, 9, and 10 in the version you permalinked). In other words, your !vote does not align with Wikipedia's sourcing policy and will most likely be given appropriately lesser weight by the closing administrator. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, and you assert without explanation that EW Popwatch, a Blog run by a major media outlet, is not a reliable source. Would you care to elaborate? Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• No need to elaborate on your second question, just see WP:NEWSBLOG for more information. In any case, are you really trying to say that an informal 200-word blog post on "EW Popwatch" is your single source that establishes notability? SnottyWong talk 05:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • No one ever said it was sufficient; it is simply one of several references. I asked why you asserted it wasn't reliable. WP:NEWSBLOG supports the use of editorially controlled blogs as reliable sources, so I'm still not sure what your problem is with the ref. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
• As for your first response, I never said that the sources were invalid because I need to pay to see them. I was just disclosing that I was unable to verify the sources on my own. However, the titles of the sources imply the level on content that they likely provide. Perhaps, since you presumably have access to the sources, you can enlighten us as to how these sources establish the notability (as opposed to the mere existence) of the TV show. Here are the titles of the sources in question: (Note that Jclemens has interspersed his comments within Snottywong's post below)

• Arpe Pretty, Malene (2006-01-07). "Child Stars". The Toronto Star: p. K02. - Is the TV show the main subject of the article, or is it merely mentioned somewhere?

Per the article's text "In 2006, the Toronto Star published their own list in response to the special, referring to it as "Seven Cutest Child Stars: Not Grown Up Yet, But When They are This is What Will Happen"". So in case that wasn't clear, yes, the entire article was a reaction to the special. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Goodings, Scott. "Thursday - Pay TV". The Age: p. 46. - The title of this article from an Australian newspaper implies that it is simply a listing of what TV shows were playing on Thursday. Furthermore, the footnote doesn't even give us the date of the newspaper edition, so this one is impossible to verify even if I had access to Australian newspapers.

Thanks for catching that. The date is now included. As it stands in the article, the article is just being used to support the assertion that the show is periodically rebroadcast. Jclemens (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Digital Highlights - Saturday January 21". The Daily Telegraph: p. 25. 2006-01-18. - This also appears to be a TV guide type listing.

As the above entry, all it's being used to support is the rebroadcast. Jclemens (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Freer, Sloan (2007-09-09). "Pick of the Day". The Observer: p. 24. - Apparently some editor's favorite TV show of the day? Or perhaps just a reprint of the press release for the show?

The article currently references this statement to this article: "Sloan Freer wrote in The Observer that the list was "veg-out, no-brainer viewing" which contained "plenty of debatable selections to shout at the TV about - especially when you get to the top spot, which frankly I think is a cheat."" Again, from the bits quoted in the article, it's relatively easy to establish that this is a review of the special, neither a program listing nor a press release. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Top TV". The Sunday Mail: p. G27. 2006-09-17. - Also some editor's favorite TV show of the day. Is every newspaper editor's favorite TV show of the day notable?

One review does not make a program notable. Three of them, in reliable sources, each of which deals non-trivially with the subject of an article do. Of course, I've given you nothing here that you couldn't already establish from the content of the article--you see, all the evidence of notability is there for you to see in the article--the only thing the paywall robs you of is the ability to effortlessly review the originals from whence those statements were taken. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If I have incorrectly assumed the content of any of these sources, then by all means please correct me. However, if I have assumed correctly, then you clearly have 10 sources which prove the existence of the TV show, and zero sources that establish its notability. If anything, the closing admin will likely give far lesser weight to the empty "Great job!" keep votes from ARS than he/she will to someone who has actually checked out your sources. SnottyWong talk 05:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Whats with this "obviously did not review the sources" slander? I reviewed a number of the sources, to the extent I could access them. The only thing obvious is that you forgot your Wheaties this morning, Snottywong. You simply disagree with other editors on whether the mass of coverage of this television special is weighty enough in the aggregate to achieve notability. This sort of disagreement is not uncommon on wikipedia.--Milowent (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I disagree that the "mass of coverage" in TV Guide listings and 200-word blog posts is weighty enough. The fact that you have actually reviewed these sources and have come to the conclusion that they satisfy WP:N (without any explanation apart from "Kudos to JClemens") should be uncommon, but unfortunately for Wikipedia, it's far from it. SnottyWong talk 05:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What's also far from uncommon is folks who decide an article isn't notable, who !vote to delete it without apparently ever having read the article and its footnotes that clearly establish its notability. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then, and see how the closing admin sees it. I still maintain that your sources fall squarely under WP:EXIST. It really doesn't matter if you can find 1000 TV Guide listings and 1000 articles that mention the TV show in passing, you will end up with 2000 sources which prove that a non-notable TV show exists. SnottyWong talk 14:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You realize that you're assuming bad faith on RS'es you haven't read, right? Or further, that you haven't overcome the presumption (which is validated by the RS I found in Lexis-Nexis) in WP:OUTCOMES that a television program that's aired on a major network is notable? While I respect your right to disengage, you may want to clarify how those two issues relate to your objections. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I don't see any assumption of bad faith in questioning the intentions of those providing sources. However, I do see a lack of a clear assumption of good faith in both sides of the back and forth on the sources and the nomination. Rather than discussing whether both of you think various editors have read what they are commenting on, please limit your discussion to the content. (Incidentally, the outcome I'm seeing refers to "Television series broadcast nationally". This was not a series.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SummerPhD (talk • contribs) 10:57, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Person A "I read this offline source, it asserts notability"

Person B "I haven't read it, but I don't believe you"

How, precisely, is that not an assumption of bad faith? Or, failing that, how have I missummarized the exchange? Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as OUTCOMES go, would you argue that "a television series" excludes a made-for-TV movie solely because it only aired once? Rather, what we see here is clear evidence that E! has re-sold airing rights worldwide--indeed, I have no idea why, but the reliable sources that deal with the content in depth all seem to be non-U.S., English-speaking papers (Australia, UK, Canada). It puzzles me. Jclemens (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not assuming bad faith. I specifically disclosed that I was unable to verify a few of the sources, then I disclosed that I was making assumptions based on the title of the sources, and then I asked you to confirm whether my assumptions were correct. Where is the assumption of bad faith? As for WP:OUTCOMES, this is not a TV series so it's not applicable. Even if it was a TV series, WP:OUTCOMES is not WP policy, and furthermore it only says that TV series are usually kept. So, it would appear you are grasping at straws. SnottyWong talk 15:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we've said everything we need to say, and we're obviously not going to change each others' minds. Unless you have any different arguments you'd like me to respond to, I'm going to wait for the closing admin's decision. SnottyWong talk 15:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)