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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Dating Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Previously deleted at AFD and subsequently under WP:G4. Recreator has argued that G4 was invalid as the text is different to that of the previous article. To settle the matter, I've restored the page and have brought it up for discussion here again. Please check the previous discussion (and the endorsement of its close at DRV) for more details. Yunshui 雲‍水 03:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: this article has multiple WP:RS and thus meets all of the criteria outlined at WP:GNG. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources really aren't all that reliable when you get down to it. Of the sources, here is a summary.

1. [1] This is a primary source, as it's the official Teletoon site for the cartoon.
2. [2] This is simply an episode guide. This sort of thing doesn't really show notability in the slightest and at best is a WP:TRIVIAL source you can use to back up episode names. It shows that it aired, but existing is not notability.
3. [3] IMDb is never usable as a source that shows notability and some question its reliability as a trivial source because essentially anyone can edit it. I myself can vouch that I've seen people deliberately go to IMDb to add information in order to try to push their point.
4. [4] Another primary source, unusable to show notability and in this case, doesn't prove anything that isn't already said in the first primary source.
5. [5] This is actually usable as a RS to show notability, but we'd need more than one such source.
6. [6] This one is sort of borderline usable. It almost reads like a press release, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was heavily taken from one. Sometimes short articles can be usable to show notability, but this wouldn't be the case with this link. It's trivial at best.
7. [7] Amazon is unusable as a RS. It's actually unusable as a source in general, so I'll be removing this one.
8. [8] Not every review site is usable as a reliable source and this site is not one of those exceptions. It's not exactly the "everyone with a keyboard can review" site that Amazon is, but there's nothing to suggest that this site is a RS.

Basically, only one of the sources posted on the article is usable for notability purposes and that one source isn't enough. I've removed a good deal of the sources and I want to discourage you from re-adding them. No matter how many unreliable sources you add, they're still unreliable. No amount of unreliable sources will show notability. A good example of this is that I've seen AfDs where people slathered hundreds of non-usable sources on an article and it was still almost unanimously deleted. If anything, it worked against the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers 3 5 (as you pointed out), 6 (non-trivial), and 8 qualify as reliable sources. In the case of number 8, it's a review from "Canada's largest independent online all entertainment magazine" with a large number of editors and that has been around since 2007 - see: [9] Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• IMDb has never been usable as anything other than a trivial source at best. (WP:IMDB) In very, VERY rare circumstances it can be used as a reliable source, but that's almost always been cases where IMDb was used to back up things such as awards that the show/movie/actor/etc won. Even then it's something that you'd have to back up with other sources, as the reliability has always been questioned because anyone can edit IMDb. Again, I've seen people log into IMDb to add claims that they or their film has won such and such an award, only to discover that the award claim cannot be backed up in other sources and that the only one claiming the subject has received the award is the subject themselves or someone representing them. Six is very debatable, as it's so brief and seems to be taken from a press release. No matter how lengthy an article is, if something is taken predominantly from a press release it's considered to be trivial coverage. This seems to be the case here. As far as the website goes, longevity is not a sign of reliability and that it has a large number of editors actually works against it because there's no way of really knowing how much checking really goes into the reviews. The problem with that website is that it looks to be the type of site that accepts reviews from almost anyone. It might do some quality checking, but it's nowhere near on par as say, Film Threat. Even if we do count all of the sources you are saying are reliable as RS, those aren't enough to show that this passes notability guidelines and you'd be hard pressed to get someone to call IMDb a reliable source, and many would count the AWN link as trivial coverage.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - number 3 should have been number 5 (though it seems obvious since I wrote "as you pointed out"). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (sighs) Considering that you're starting to get into a revert war with me over the sources, I just assumed that you were talking about 3 and were a little confused. I really recommend that you read over WP:RS and in the future, use the reliable sources noticeboard as a place to ask about sources before posting anything.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As discussed in the prior AfD and in the Deletion Review discussion there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to have this be notable. All of the sources in the article were already presented at DRV and the deletion was endorsed. If necessary, I can run through the sources again.

Ref #1: The publisher's TV spot summary for the show doesn't add to notability.

Ref #2: Zap2It's episode guide doesn't add to notability. It is not discussion or anything with coverage.

Ref #3: An IMDB listing doesn't add to notability, it is essentially an editable wiki and has no coverage anyways.

Ref #4: MarbleMedia seems to be either another TV listing summary or a press release, not sure which. But it doesn't have any significant commentary on the subject, so it doesn't add to notability. Not to mention that it is also a publisher, so adds even less than nothing because of that.

Ref #5: Metro News is actually a reliable source, however the article is just a short, in universe interview with one of the characters and has no critical commentary. So if it adds anything to notability, it is a very minimal amount.

Ref #6: Animation World Network is a somewhat reliable source and this is the second best reference in the bunch. But, even so, it says practically nothing on the subject besides that it's going to be released and reads similarly to a tv listing.

Ref #7: An Amazon sales listing is not reliable source coverage and adds nothing to notability.

Ref #8: The Press Plus 1 review is the best reference here. It is an actual review of the season 1 DVD. However, the site's reliability and importance is questionable and there would need to be more than just this one good source to show notability.

As a whole there needs to be at least two more references that are at the level of quality of the Press Plus 1 source and are from known reliable publications. Without those, i'm not seeing notability here at all, just a cobbling of extremely disparate sources that lend practically nothing to the article. Silverseren^C 04:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to note that I'm asking about some of these sources at the RS noticeboard. (here's the link) The more I look at the AWN link, the more I'm convinced that it's taken from a press release. Typically in a press release the names of the show, the creators, etc are put in all caps. That the link does that kind of makes me believe that it's taken almost verbatim from a press release.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've waded through a ton of search pages with just the term "Dating Guy" minus the creators' names. The result is that I'm convinced now more than ever that the show is not notable. It has won no awards, nor has it even received much notice when it released. There was a spate of press releases and a couple halfhearted brief news posts based off of said press releases, but no in-depth coverage. Other than the dubious Press Plus 1 review, there was no long term coverage of this show in any reliable sources. It's very trivially and briefly mentioned now and again when a voice actor or one of the creators does something else, but nothing that would actually be usable as far as notability goes. This just isn't notable. I tried cleaning up the article and giving it at least a passing chance, but Dogmaticeclectic has repeatedly reverted to "his" version of the article, which includes several links that multiple editors in different venues have told him are unusable.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A nationally aired television program that survived two seasons, and did get some press. That meets notability standards in my opinion. --GRuban (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you show me what press you're talking about? Because being nationally aired or having two seasons has nothing to do with notability. There's plenty of shows that have had two seasons and don't meet notability standards. Silverseren^C 22:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability says "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". I'm arguing that a nationally aired television program, aired over two seasons, does in fact have plenty to do with notability: it indicates having gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large ("being nationally aired") over a period of time ("having two seasons"). --GRuban (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then there needs to be sources to prove that. Not every television show is notable. Just saying that it aired does not give it notability. You need to have sources to show that it's notable. If you can find the sources and present them, then fine. But, otherwise, you don't have an argument here. Silverseren^C 23:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is this, The Argument Sketch now? :-) Trust me, I have an argument. You might not be convinced, but that doesn't make it not an argument. The sources as presented aren't great - they're not the most reliable or the most indepth - but they do exist, and in combination with the "nationally aired for two seasons" bit is enough to make me argue that it should be kept. --GRuban (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I just meant that it's not a very good argument. :/ People usually try to at least meet the GNG and all. Silverseren^C 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No "at least" about it. I think it meets WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" by a couple of entries of TokyoGirl's list, even though she specifically made that list to refute that claim. Not by a lot, but by enough. --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources have not significantly improved since the last AfD, and the conclusions from the last AfD still stand. This show fails WP:GNG. LK (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tokyogirl and AfD #1. It's not notable and the sources are as TG noted. WP is not a junkyard. GregJackP Boomer! 14:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The analysis of the sources shows that this topic doesn't have enough significant coverage and fails WP:N. Till 14:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – the topic lacks the source coverage to have a solid article, apart from primary sites, video hosting sites and retailers. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 15:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per examination of sources used above. People who want to save articles have an unfortunate tendency to grasp at straws and try to use bad sources to support what they want to do, and then that just encourages further use of bad sources elsewhere. These don't qualify under WP:RS rules to be used at all, and there's further higher standards to demonstrate notability to have a Wikipedia article per WP:GNG rules. As a real show it's kind of surprising there are no good sources out there, but some may turn up eventually. When that happens the article can be created again. DreamGuy (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The coverage as note above consists of mostly unreliable sources. Setting aside the Press1Plus review for a moment, those sources that are reliable only provide superficial coverage and fails to qualify as signiticant coverage. The only coverage of significance is the Press1Plus review of the season 1 DVD and I am not convinced it is a reliable source. As for the argument put forth by GRuban that two seasons of broadcast evidences notability, I am not convinced. Teletoon Canada is not an over the air boradcaster, it is a Category A services specialty channel which means it is mandated for for carriage on cable and satellite. Canadian content develoment is normally a condition of license from the CRTC as evidenced [10]. Given this, I only see evidence that Teletoon is trying to fulfill their license obligation, and not necessariyl any indication of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.