Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/America's Most Talented Kid
- 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. I'm still not 100% satisfied with the sourcing here, but it's better than it started out (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)]
America's Most Talented Kid
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- America's Most Talented Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Found only passing mentions in relation to the hosts. Got a couple press releases at its debut but nothing else; no news coverage of the host and network switch. Newspapers.com gave only TV Guide listings. Deprodded because it aired on national TV, but
WP:NTV dictates that not all shows airing on national TV are automatically notable if sources don't exist. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
- Weak keep Not mentioned that all in sources, but probably deserves a stub because it aired on NBC and seems to be mentioned across the internet. I know it isn't exactly WP:N, but personally I believe it still deserves at least a stub. Seungri400 (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)]
- "Seems to be mentioned". WP:NTV does it meet? Airing on NBC isn't an ironclad guarantee of notability:]
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage or airs on a minor secondary cable channel.
- "Seems to be mentioned".
- Keep - The fact it aired nationally on a major broadcast network in the US, for a full season, makes it notable. --Rob (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Did you not read what I posted above? Presence of sourcing is more important than length of show or notability of network. Can you prove that there are sources? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)]
- If this was a current web series, I would expect multiple (many) sources with very substantial coverage, as its inclusion would depend entirely on GNG, and nowadays it's easy for for a random little creator to go viral and generate lots of Google hits. But, we're talking about a *complete* season on a major (top 3) broadcast US network in 2003. To make an analogy, if you come in last in a non-famous sport in the Olympics, you'll automatically get an article, just because its considered such an achievement just to be competing at that level. You don't need to show a huge coverage, but just need to verify you did the clearly notable thing. In addition to network status, the show has a dozen notable people involved (contestants+hosts) with their own articles. That's analogous to an unsuccessful band that had multiple members go on to become notable. Such a band would warrant an article, even if coverage of the band was limited to passing mentions in bios of its members. --Rob (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Notability is WP:RS supercede everything else, and this is clearly failing them both. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)]
- Where does it say that GNG supersedes everything else? GNG is not a founding principal of Wikipedia, which existed for years before GNG developed. After GNG gained consensus, it was not used to retroactively eliminate categories of things considered notable, such as Olympians, politicians of a certain level, and various other things deemed notable. Notability isn't inherited, so simply having one famous person on a show means nothing, but there is a cumulative effect of numerous things (notable hosts+notable contestants+major network). Maybe we should move to using GNG for everything, but that's a discussion for another place. As for "RS", there are reliable sources. The critical facts of the article are verifiable, although there is a lack of the indepth coverage that GNG entails, and citations should be (and can be) added for all facts. --Rob (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- "There are reliable sources". Says who? No one in this AFD has proven that there are, and saying "but there are sources!" doesn't automatically make them appear in the article. Did you find sources? No. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)]
- So, I actually did add nine sources *before* your above comment. So, I'm not just saying there are sources. The current citations are unfortunately, just passing mentions, in articles about performers, who started on the show. These are what you get with a quick Google search. If you have access to ProQuest (free through Wikipedia Library) you can see that there is more substantial contemporaneous coverage, which I haven't had time to integrate into the article yet. There's a substantial article by Richard Dyer [1] that is a thorough critique of the show. I cited it just now, but haven't properly incorporated/used it. There are also several articles going into detail about the experience of specific contestants on the show (not just a quick passing mention). So, if you can read ProQuest (or other news service), please do. Now, if you still feel that the sources aren't sufficient, that's fine, and I understand/respect that position. But, please don't say there are no sources. --Rob (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
- "There are reliable sources". Says who? No one in this AFD has
- Where does it say that GNG supersedes everything else? GNG is not a founding principal of Wikipedia, which existed for years before GNG developed. After GNG gained consensus, it was not used to retroactively eliminate categories of things considered notable, such as Olympians, politicians of a certain level, and various other things deemed notable. Notability isn't inherited, so simply having one famous person on a show means nothing, but there is a cumulative effect of numerous things (notable hosts+notable contestants+major network). Maybe we should move to using GNG for everything, but that's a discussion for another place. As for "RS", there are reliable sources. The critical facts of the article are verifiable, although there is a lack of the indepth coverage that GNG entails, and citations should be (and can be) added for all facts. --Rob (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Notability is
- If this was a current web series, I would expect multiple (many) sources with very substantial coverage, as its inclusion would depend entirely on GNG, and nowadays it's easy for for a random little creator to go viral and generate lots of Google hits. But, we're talking about a *complete* season on a major (top 3) broadcast US network in 2003. To make an analogy, if you come in last in a non-famous sport in the Olympics, you'll automatically get an article, just because its considered such an achievement just to be competing at that level. You don't need to show a huge coverage, but just need to verify you did the clearly notable thing. In addition to network status, the show has a dozen notable people involved (contestants+hosts) with their own articles. That's analogous to an unsuccessful band that had multiple members go on to become notable. Such a band would warrant an article, even if coverage of the band was limited to passing mentions in bios of its members. --Rob (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
- Did you not read what I posted above? Presence of sourcing is more important than length of show or notability of network. Can you
Delete All of the sources that do mention "America's Most Talented Kid" pertains to those that participated on the show, and do not pertain to the actual show itself. FailsWP:GNG strictly in terms of sourcing, but probably can still be mentioned somewhere as far as any articles on those that participated in the show.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)]- Are you counting this article (which requires a ProQuest account to read), that is cited. Not yet cited in the article, is this piece, which admittedly focusses on a couple contestants, but includes general show info such as:
- The show features kids from 16 cities across America competing in a talent competition. Each week, the candidates are scored by a panel of celebrity judges headed by 'N Sync's Lance Bass. They pick a winner from the three kids in each age category (3-7, 8-12 and 13- 15). The three finalists from each show advance to the final round to compete for the $50,000 cash prize.".
- It's unfortunate, when this Wikipedia article was made, there were no citations to the available contemporaneous sources, which largely dropped from Google. Results still in Google tend to be more recent stores, and therefore have absolute barebones mentions of the show. The results in ProQuest are better. They give enough to have a fully cited complete article. --Rob (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have a ProQuest account, so my deletion rationale wasn't counting anything from there. But if what you provided satisfies Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, perhaps they can be added to the article? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm still not convinced that this passes GNG, as of all the sources added, only one is actually about the show. The others are fluff pieces on former contestants that just mention their participation in passing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have a ProQuest account, so my deletion rationale wasn't counting anything from there. But if what you provided satisfies Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, perhaps they can be added to the article? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Are you counting this article (which requires a ProQuest account to read), that is cited. Not yet cited in the article, is this piece, which admittedly focusses on a couple contestants, but includes general show info such as:
- Spartaz Humbug! 10:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)]
- Weak Keep. While no one is going to argue that "America's Most Talented Kid" is a household name or key to the cultural development of the world, it still seems notable enough to keep as an article. It's release in 2003 during still early-internet days means it will likely have disproportionately low currently available sources compared to similarly notable shows in more recent years. A MINOTAUR (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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.