Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3G Boss

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. This closure overturns a previous non-admin closure (see WP:NACD); see also Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 February 5. Sandstein 20:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3G Boss

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This article, created by 2.28.93.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and substantially edited only by that IP and Quattrostagioni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (one assumes they are one and the same), has superficial referenciness, but the references are to thinks like LinkedIn profiles, the producer's own website and press releases. The only actual RS is [1], which namechecks the show once. Overall there is no evidence that this meets WP:GNG. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the source mentions the show in reference to one of the students is itself significant. It did briefly describe the show, but you must understand that it would not be able to release lots of information due to confidentiality reasons. Quattrostagioni (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[2] is fully independent and bases its whole article on the show. I also noticed there was a Wikipedia entry previously [3] which was requested to be deleted by its author, but it passed draft review stage and was on the mainpage for a while. Despite using only one source, it was considered notable enough. Quattrostagioni (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be independent, but it is not reliable. See WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 01:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about the previous article which was deleted by its author? Quattrostagioni (talk) 10:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the article. It is a significantly notable topic and the information about the show will help people understand. It also serves a summary article similar to The Apprentice (UK series eleven). 2.28.93.248 (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is an absolutely classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. The Apprentice is a series on national TV, syndicated internationally, and fronted by entrepeeurs of international standing and Donald Trump. This knock-off doesn't seem to have paid the licensing fee for the format, and has no substantive coverage in reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 01:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, 3G Boss is also a series on national TV and is the flagship CSR project of the Canary Wharf Group. 2.28.93.248 (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Channel S is the UK's most watched Bangladeshi channel. And a licensing agreement is not required as it has a different format because of the target audience. It is not a mere 'knock-off' but a big achievement for the Bangladeshi expatriate population. Quattrostagioni (talk) 10:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some independent newspaper sources now. Quattrostagioni (talk) 10:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article can be improved and slightly rewritten to address flaws. Article is of benefit to Wikipedia. 213.205.251.16 (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC) — 213.205.251.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Using what sources? You are the principal author of this article and you keep adding more and more non-RS sources, or sources that are not actually about the subject. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2.28.93.248 and I am the principal authors. This user has barely made any edits or changes Quattrostagioni (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as offline sources are credible but may need to be more detailed. I can improve the article further with more citations in the future. Quattrostagioni (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC) — Quattrostagioni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well, LinkedIn is credible, but not as a source. The sources the article contains say basically nothing about the subject. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Independent newspaper sources are credible in my opinion. As marked on the article, citations relating to these newspaper sources need to be completed and they will be soon. Although they are supported by internal sources, the newspapers are the reliable sources. I will find some external AV media sources as well. Quattrostagioni (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable TV show on minor satellite TV channel that hasn't received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. --Michig (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article topic has received coverage in several offline reliable independent sources - lack of reliable sources when searched on internet is not argument against notability. Quattrostagioni has said they will add more independent source citations and complete existing references in the near future, and I will do the same. The TV show is not unremarkable; it is a big achievement for the community, and although not an argument to keep in its own right, pageview stats verify article popularity.2.28.93.248 (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC) — 2.28.93.248 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG for lack of available reliable sources. That's not surprising since it began airing less than four weeks ago.- Mr X 15:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As mentioned above, this is a show that has aired for 4 (!) weeks, so if nothing else this is way too soon. Not only that, the article reads like a full web site promotion for the show, not as an encyclopedia article. There are lengthy plot descriptions that almost make watching the show unnecessary. None of the content is based on what third-parties have said about the show. It's all primary, and it's a huge advertisement. From the comments by the creators, I believe that they have misunderstood the purpose of an encyclopedia. LaMona (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as simply none of the sourcing is even minimally consistently solid, with noticeable press releases, primaries and social links SwisterTwister talk 19:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is terrible, It may be a good show, but not all shows are notable. The creator could move the content to his/her sandbox.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed from mainspace back to draft Quattrostagioni (talk) 19:56, 17 January 2016 (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.