Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nanna's Cottage

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nanna's Cottage

Non Notable Television series. Article has no sources to back up any claim to Notability. Actually it has no sources at all. Come to that, it does not even make a claim to Notability, though the editor removing the ProD tag calims in the edit summary "a sizeable audience" Springnuts (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of significant coverage (just occasional mention in the local newspapers where it was produced). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Small Christian kid's programs like this one usually cannot find significant coverage because no one is giving them that coverage, nor does it have the fanbase to sustain fansites. It has aired on the United States's largest religious network and several other stations and networks and aired on a regular schedule, thus I feel it can be notable. Just because it isn't getting iCarly numbers (or is the case in much of religious television, usually completely disregarding ratings), that is no reason for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 09:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: your reason for keeping violates both WP:NOR & WP:V. That a program "cannot find significant coverage" precludes wikipedia from covering it. Wikipedia's purpose is to document and summarise material in reliable sources, not to make up for their perceived deficiencies in coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Mrschimpf pointed out, it was broadcast on the largest U.S. Christian television network, which should meet notability standards. A spot-check of Amazon.com also shows DVDs of the program's episodes are being sold, which would suggest there is a degree of viewer familiarity with the program. It also has an extensive summary at TV.com: [1]. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: why should being "broadcast on the largest U.S. Christian television network ... meet notability standards"? Please specify which criteria on which notability guideline this satisfies. Also, Amazon advertises all sorts of stuff, including self-published vanity press material -- being advertised on Amazon is no evidence at all of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand WP:N standards, being broadcast on a national television network confirms notability for the production. Your point on Amazon is well taken, but the DVDs are not self-published -- they are being released by Digiview Entertainment. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline doesn't say that anywhere. Schuym1 (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are two newspaper articles directly pertinent to this program in the reference section (I just added the second). What is the cutoff line for "significant" coverage? Is it three papers? Seven? I believe two articles for a niche-market show can be considered "significant" enough. It is widely broadcast within its niche--carried by many Christian-market satellite services and local channels, as well as TBN. (The local angle of the articles is irrelevant; that's like saying Check, Please should be deleted as nonnotable because the articles covering it are all from the Chicago area. It's sourced and the sources are reliable.)GJC 14:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "local angle" is relevant, as it demonstrates that it is the fact that the show is locally produced, not the show itself, that garnered it coverage. As the show is targeted at a national audience, why would the coverage be so localised, if not for this reason? Your 'Check, Please' counterexample is off-point in that it is targeted solely at a Chicago audience, so you would not expect coverage outside Chicago. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that public broadcasting and Christian networks often don't have the budgets for advertisement (that leads to mainstream press coverage) does not mean that it is not well known, or notable. tv.com, IMDB, and local papers appear to satisfy notability guidelines. — Ched (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please bear in mind that being Non-Notable in the wiki sense does not mean unimportant, or poor quality. It is not a value judgement on the programme. It just means that there are not reliable and substantial third party sources about it. Springnuts (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Schuym1 (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:CSB, I hardly expect us to document every Christian children's show but neither should we expect them to be reported the same way and breadth of primetime or reality tv shows. Anyone with cable TV access knows there are Christian channels, or at least blocks of programming, and indoctrinating children is certainly a part of this. I have little doubt that some reasonable NPOV coverage can be found in Christian and industry publications and it's not a stretch to imagine there might be some additional reports on Christian news/talk shows. In a brief search it also seems that this show has been aired in Australia and Great Britain as well. We also have:

Hope these help. The wp:lede should be tweaked to explain what notability there is, a part of which is the writer has done other shows and media work. -- Banjeboi 04:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User_talk:Benjiboi's superb analysis per WP:CSB. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I'll need to see what else can be found. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources provided above:

Thorough research, but if we look at the sources they don't add up to much. Seven sources are suggested above:

1) Press Release - patently not a secondary source.

2) Article in medium size family newspaper. Not really substantial discussion of the topic, though the headline was promising.

3) Boiler plate article in same paper.

4) Boiler plate article in same paper.

5) Boiler plate article in same paper.

6) some form of regulatory document.

7) ...and a random book by somebody with a similar name to that of the producer(!)

Oh and a guess that there is coverage elsewhere.

Springnuts (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the bad faith-ish comment but I labeled that press release as a press release which can be cited if characterized as such. That newspaper can still be a reliable source even if they are medium-sized or whatever. That "some form of regulatory document" is the Federal Communication Commision, again it's a potential source and can be used. That "random book by somebody with a similar name to that of the producer" actually refers directly to this show although there could be two people with the same name who both produce a show with this name, stranger things have happened. And yes, news and talk shows blather on about all sorts of topics, Television industry media and Christian magazines also cover a wide range of topics so I have no problem imagining other sources exist and aren't easily accessed online as of yet. -- Banjeboi 18:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if my insistence on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject came across as bad-faith-ish. I am happy to grant that the newspaper articles are RS - but what is the significant coverage they give? Delete now, and if other sources come to light, re-create. This is standard wiki stuff. Springnuts (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improving articles is generally a good idea so that's not the issue. I stated my reasoning and provided a handful of references that support this article. If your interest is finding fault with them then that is your option. I choose other routes to direct my energies here. -- Banjeboi 19:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: another problem with these sources is that they cover viewpoints that the article does not (and I strongly suspect does not intend to) give WP:DUE weight to. The coverage is pure 'local interest', the article is pure 'IMDB-spam'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the other "Keep" statements above -- while mainly slanted toward Christian kids, it is a nationally-syndicated television show, broadcasted on national religious networks such as TBN. Additionally, it has a DVD release out, sold at a national chain (Wal-Mart). I feel those are notable enough. -- azumanga (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I do not watch religious programming myself, this series appears to be a nationally-broadcast television program, aired on TBN. It looks like it will be (or already has been) included in McNeil's Total Television (McNeil's standard is any television program of 15 minutes in length or longer which aired on network television) and Brooks and Marsh's Complete Directory (their standard is any network or cable program whose broadcaster reaches at least 50% of the country... which includes TBN). Thus, reliable sources can certainly be found, if the existing sources aren't considered up to par. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming it can be proven that it's on Trinity Broadcasting Network, a minor network but one with lots of visibility. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it did broadcast on the network - see this document[[2]] - but notability is not inherited - note Wheredoesitend's almost identically worded argument to avoid. Springnuts (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2009 (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.