Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colourblocks

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 draftify. Legoktm (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colourblocks

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not seeing how this passes WP:GNG. PROD removed but no additional sources offered to sufficiently assert notability. Newly broadcast show, while searching proves the show exists yet coverage is limited to news articles about it being a new show. No evidence of needed WP:SIGCOV. At best, WP:TOOSOON. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Education. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is there any particular policy for deciding the notability of such topics? I could only find an essay for television series. Haueirlan (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The closest is probably WP:NMEDIA, which is possibly the essay you refer to. I cannot find an explicit policy relating to television shows, hence there is no mention beyond the general criteria which encompasses all subjects. An article's subject matter still needs to assert notability beyond simply existing. This may come in time for this series, but I don't think it can be considered notable at this time. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the series has already started airing, doesn't WP:NFTV imply that it's notable enough?

In the case of animated series, reliable sources must confirm that the series is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced. Edderiofer (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although as noted, this relates to an essay as opposed to a policy, the section above that paragraph on the specified page also notes about general principles and the need for a subject to be notable (and that the section WP:NFTV is "Additional criteria for the evaluation of television-related articles are outlined in the sections below"). I see you haven't actually !voted as such, so unsure if you're believing it should be kept because it exists, or just playing devil's advocate? Either way, in the absence of a clear explicit community-vetted policy saying otherwise, we would have to rely on WP:GNG. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I missed that WP:NFTV is an essay and not a guideline. In that case, I vote to draftify the article until such time as it receives more coverage from secondary sources beyond just "it's a new show". It's a show airing on as large a television channel as BBC, I think it's very likely that more coverage of it will appear in time. (My "official" vote is below the relist.) Edderiofer (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify. Clearly fails WP:SIGCOV at present. However, it may be too early for significant coverage to be published, so draftify is a viable option.4meter4 (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as above. Edderiofer (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2022 (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.