Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pursuit of the Truth (2nd nomination)

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. The sourcing problems identified by Bearcat haven't really been addressed. Sandstein 20:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pursuit of the Truth

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

While this doesn't qualify for G4 speedy as a recreation of deleted content -- the problem last time was a complete lack of any sources at all, which isn't the case this time -- it's still not properly demonstrated as

WP:NMEDIA just because it's possible to nominally verify its existence -- we need to be able to write some genuinely informative and useful and substantive content about it. (For example, given that this was a competition series, who were the contestants in the first place, what were their film ideas about and who won the damn thing?) Just stating that it existed is not enough, and reference-bombing it with a pile of sources that offer duplicate and triplicate reverification that it existed, but don't actually enable us to add anything more than stating that it existed, is not the way to make it notable. Bearcat (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough evidence of notability from independent reliable sources. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the article has been revised to address the content issues I addressed in the nomination statement — namely, it now actually documents the "who were the contestants and who won" part of the equation — but it relies entirely on
reliable source coverage in media independent of itself, to support those additions. So no, the problem here has still not been properly resolved. Bearcat (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep: A few more
WP:RS would help. The winning doc has more sources than the series. StrayBolt (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:18, 13 November 2017 (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.