Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totally Random

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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Random

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

Article about a TV/online show that does not seem to meet WP:GNG at this time. Also, the article reads a bit like an advertisement for the show. BenTels (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article just needs some improvement or clean-up. Bleubeatle (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote the guideline: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable." Keφr (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Based on sources available to me now, weak delete. But I acknowledge I am not really an expert.~~ Keφr (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, there are actually several links already present in the external links section, including Mediacaster magazine and a segment on CTV Morning Live, which are valid reliable sources, and which would cumulatively demonstrate sufficient notability if they were actually being used as real content sources and not just piled up in an external linkfarm. Article definitely needs cleanup, but sufficient sources are already present to support a keep iffen someone actually fixes it so that they're actually being used as sources. Bearcat (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, this sort of convinces me, though I am still hesitant to recommend keeping. I think a few additional sources are necessary; the show being fairly young makes existence of many sources somewhat unlikely. Also, the WP:10YT. Keφr (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2012 (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.