Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dude, What Would Happen

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, What Would Happen

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

I was unable to find reliable sources which provide significant coverage for this show. The sources I could find just provide trivial coverage of it in a list of other shows. Although it is returning, the subject does not appear notable per the WP:GNG. Although I am not nominating the article with this one, I did WP:PROD a similar article, Bobb'e Says, and feel I should mention it here in case someone wishes to contest it. Odie5533 (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep TV shows are generally considered notable if they made it past a couple episodes. This one lasted two seasons, but there aren't too many sources on it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per TPH and WP:OUTCOMES we generally keep such show articles, but I wouldn't object to merging this into a list of similar shows. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To both of the above users, you mention that they are "generally considered notable" and "we generally keep such show articles". I would ask that you consider this specific case. I have not found multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage for this show. If you have, please share them. If you have not, I ask that you examine the subject of the article more carefully as single example rather than in general. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did. I found only a couple of sources, but I still think they're enough to give this one a pass. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you would be willing to share these sources it would be much appreciated. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Television shows are part of mass popular culture and the public consciousness. This particular page is well-done to boot. Carrite (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every television show warrants an article. Please read WP:GNG for the general notability guidelines at Wikipedia, which provides well-supported criteria for determining if a subject is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. Also, I am not contending the contents of the page but the existence of it. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above AND per coverage in Animation Magazine, Christian Science Monitor, Atalanta Journal-Constitution, Hollywood Reporter, USA Today, Birmingham News, Bloomberg, Deseret News, Futon Critic, TV by the Numbers, Columbus Dispatch, Washington Post, and more... with a gentle suggestion toward a slightly more thorough WP:BEFORE, and attention to WP:IMPROVE, WP:IMPERFECT, and WP:ATD before a nomination is made. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see this is headed for a speedy keep. But I must protest. Every single one of those sources provides only trivial coverage of the show. Open each one in a tab and [CTRL] + [F] for the word dude:
  1. Animation Magazine – Two sentences about the show in a list of other shows
  2. Christian Science Monitor – the show's name is only mentioned in a sentence with other show's names.
  3. Atalanta Journal-Constitution – One sentence mentioning the show
  4. Hollywood Reporter – "[...] the wacky-experiment series Dude, What Would Happen [...]" that's all this source says about the show.
  5. USA Today – "Reality series Destroy Build Destroy and Dude, What Would Happen will be joined by a pair of live-action mysteries centered on teen characters: Unnatural History, due June 13, is set at a Washington museum, while Tower Prep involves a rebellious boy trapped at an escape-proof prep school."
  6. Birmingham News – Appears on a list of many, MANY other shows by the network: "Dude, What Would Happen: This series stars three teens who ask and answer questions such as, "Dude, what would happen if you attached 350 helium balloons to a sumo wrestler?""
  7. Bloomberg – An interview which says, "In mid-August, Cartoon premiered its two latest shows, Bobb'e Says, about a kid who goes around telling people what not to do, and Dude, What Would Happen, about three curious teens who conduct quirky science experiments."
  8. Futon Critic – A press release. Not a secondary source.
  9. TV by the Numbers – This reference does not even mention the show at all. One of the anonymous users commenting on the article mentions the show.
  10. Columbus Dispatch – The very last paragraph mentions the show in a single sentence after discussing half a dozen other shows: "Dude, What Would Happen features a group of teenage boys who try stunts such as installing a lemonade tank under the hood of a car."
  11. Washington Post – Cartoon Network kicks off Season 2 of live-action shows "Dude, What Would Happen" (at 8) and "Destroy Build Destroy" (at 8:30).

I looked through many sources before nominating this article for deletion. I do not believe it meets the notability guidelines as no source is both secondary and provides significant coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The error under which you are laboring is your thought that the guideline WP:GNG is the only consideration toward notability. If that were so, there would be absoulutely no reason for any other criteria to exist. Indeed, many topics meet GNG in spades and yet do not survive as stand-alone articles, as the GNG is not the only criteria that may be considered... and too, each and every guideline is headed by the caution "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". As long as the article does not violate WP:NOT, those exceptions are determined through consensus of editors in the discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe a sufficient argument has been advanced that this would qualify as an exception to the GNG. There are lots of subjects which receive repeated and minor mention in newspapers and other reliable sources. I believe, as apparently do many others, that significant coverage is necessary to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Not only does significant coverage help to determine the notability of the subject, but creating an article requires more information than a few brief mentions at the tail-end of a newspaper article can provide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odie5533 (talk • contribs) 02:38, August 13, 2010

Your personal belief in the GNG as if it were the grail, while laudable, is not supported by consensus, as a majority of editors do not agree with it being the ONLY pertinant criteria. While yes, meeting the GNG is often indicative of a presumption of notability, it is a rebuttable presumption... and many articles fail meriting a stand-alone even after far surpassing the requirements of the GNG. At odds with your argument is that consensus has long established that a failure to meet the GNG is not an automatic failure of WP:N, as notability may be also met by meeting subsidiary guidelines, or through consensus of commenting editors (agree with them or not) that may then create the allowable occasional exception. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:18, 13 August 2010 (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.