Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guru Larry's Retro Corner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Guru Larry's Retro Corner (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)
Host's article was deleted for lack of notability; and I'm not seeing any individual notability for the show. This was bundled into the host's AFD, but kept as no-consensus due to no one addressing the show notability in the host's afd. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 17:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 17:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just a segment in another show (excluding, from what I understand, the 15 min highlights programme). No evidence of notability. If we delete this, can I ask that we employ common sense and delete List of Guru Larry's Retro Corner episodes with it. Thanks. —Half Price 17:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect, it is currently a full show on Information TV Airing on Sky, Freeview and Freesat. --FirecrackerDemon (talk) 05:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't even assert notability aside from the totally uncited "popular" in the first sentence. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect back to The Chart and optionally merge some of the information not already in the main article. Can't see any evidence of notability independent of the show it spun off from. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chart is also at AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, redirect if The Chart survives, delete if it doesn't. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I thought this was to be kept? there are several notable links in there, from press releases from GamesPress.com amongst others. Not to mention the show is still on Sky TV, Freesat and Freeview airing on Information TV --FirecrackerDemon (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also to quote Wiki Admin, User:FT2...
"Guru Larry's Retro Corner - No consensus - default to keep without prejudice to any future discussion.
The article here is much better founded. The series lasted, there are cites in the article, there is a visible reason why it might be notable. There is almost no discussion at this AFD either to show any consensus to delete. "This article was defaulted to keep as noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Bundy Jr--FirecrackerDemon (talk) So why are you asking to have this deleted again Hammer? 05:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed the phrase "without prejudice to future discussion". This is the future discussion, and this article will stay or go depending on the outcome of this discussion. Previous AfDs never tie the hands of future AfDs. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So the same person can put up an AfD the day after? (like what has happened here) That hardly seems a reasonable action.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? The previous discussion was closed with the observation that this article was being discussed. Now we're discussing it. Why should we have to wait an arbitrary amount of time to discuss the notability of an article we didn't properly discuss last time? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It just seems like a loophole for someone with a personal vendetta to abuse Etc.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Loopholes avoid rules, and I don't understand which rule you think the nominator is avoiding. The only rule you seem to think has been evaded is a rule against nominating the same article for deletion twice, and as I and others have pointed out, that is considered perfectly legitimate. I should warn you that if you are trying to save this article, you are going about it the wrong way. People have previously turned AfDs around by making a good case for notability which persuades other people to change their mind. But when the defence is simply claiming you're not allowed to nominate the article for deletion, that tactic (along with abuse and arbitrary claims of grandeur) usually stops most people listening. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, would information from Information TV's website suffice as notability? (as the show airs on several of their channels on Sky/freeview now. I believe press releases exist on GamesPress.com and also many articvles on places like ThatGurWithTheGlasses.com, ScrewAttack.com, Retroware TV as well. Also uploaded videos on YouTube of episodes.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added several refrences to TV networks it currently airs on, as well as several websites.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 06:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, would information from Information TV's website suffice as notability? (as the show airs on several of their channels on Sky/freeview now. I believe press releases exist on GamesPress.com and also many articvles on places like ThatGurWithTheGlasses.com, ScrewAttack.com, Retroware TV as well. Also uploaded videos on YouTube of episodes.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Loopholes avoid rules, and I don't understand which rule you think the nominator is avoiding. The only rule you seem to think has been evaded is a rule against nominating the same article for deletion twice, and as I and others have pointed out, that is considered perfectly legitimate. I should warn you that if you are trying to save this article, you are going about it the wrong way. People have previously turned AfDs around by making a good case for notability which persuades other people to change their mind. But when the defence is simply claiming you're not allowed to nominate the article for deletion, that tactic (along with abuse and arbitrary claims of grandeur) usually stops most people listening. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It just seems like a loophole for someone with a personal vendetta to abuse Etc.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? The previous discussion was closed with the observation that this article was being discussed. Now we're discussing it. Why should we have to wait an arbitrary amount of time to discuss the notability of an article we didn't properly discuss last time? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So the same person can put up an AfD the day after? (like what has happened here) That hardly seems a reasonable action.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 08:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You missed the phrase "without prejudice to future discussion". This is the future discussion, and this article will stay or go depending on the outcome of this discussion. Previous AfDs never tie the hands of future AfDs. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All the sources added by Firecracker were primary sources. Still doesn't cut it for notability IMO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? I don't know how more notable a programming schedule from a website owned by the on of, if not THE largest Non-Sky owned satellite company in Europe I can possibly get then. It airs on ThatGuyWithTheGlasses too, a site that was voted on for an AfD itself, but deemed notable enough to keep. So Ergo... --FirecrackerDemon (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED is your answer. Just because X is closely associated with notable Y doesn't mean X is notable in its own right. Note that none of the individual TGWTG personalities has a page here, because none of them has sufficient standalone notability. Not even the Nostalgia Critic. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Larry Bundy Jr Had one for well over a year and Spoony's has merged to be more about himself, as with Doug Walker. But my first comment about considering one of the largest Satelitte broadcasters in Europe to be noteable still stands. --FirecrackerDemon (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify on a comment above ("I don't know how more notable a programming schedule from a website owned by the on of, if not THE largest Non-Sky owned satellite company in Europe I can possibly get then"). A program doesn't become notable by being listed on a large station - for much the same reason a word isn't necessarily significant for being in a large dictionary. "Big channel" or "big TV company" doesn't necessarily mean the programs listed on it gained notice from the wider world, and that's the issue notability is looking at. We're trying to assess the quality and extent of attention it got in reliable sources independent of the topic. Its hosting company or broadcaster is not independent, and their mentions of it are not because the wider world took notice but because they want the wider world to take notice - a big difference. Look for evidence it got significant coverage (in the sense of atention, not market size) in other credible published sources that are independent of its makers and broadcasters, or awards, or special mentions, or the like, that's much more the kind of question that helps. You might find the guidance in the introduction here helpful (including the text in the "collapse box"). FT2 (Talk | email) 15:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Larry Bundy Jr Had one for well over a year and Spoony's has merged to be more about himself, as with Doug Walker. But my first comment about considering one of the largest Satelitte broadcasters in Europe to be noteable still stands. --FirecrackerDemon (talk) 04:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED is your answer. Just because X is closely associated with notable Y doesn't mean X is notable in its own right. Note that none of the individual TGWTG personalities has a page here, because none of them has sufficient standalone notability. Not even the Nostalgia Critic. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help (also for the article) I'll have a look around, see what I can come up with. I'd have liked to have put it up as notable for being the world's first full Retro gaming TV show, but I'm going to have great difficulty proving as there's no "first" lists Etc. --FirecrackerDemon (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2010 (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.