Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Drama Presents: The Ridonculous Race

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama Presents: The Ridonculous Race

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

Appears to be too soon for an article at this time, as the only information made available so far about this subject comes from this press release and this FreshTV blog entry —both primary sources. The article also cites various LinkedIn profiles, which do not contribute strongly to notability. The press release only makes a rather small mention of the subject, and does not provide much more encyclopedic information. Ultimately, the bottom line is that as of now there are no reliable sources that discuss this subject, and by policy: no reliable third-party sources = no notability. Mz7 (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Go ahead and delete it since it seems that this is not Season 6, and instead a brand new TV series which is too early in the production stages and might not air until a few years down the road. Besides, How to Train Your Dragon 3 has more reliable sources than this, and even that doesn't have its own article yet. So yeah... DELETE Giggett (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the best you've got for 'sources' is snooping LinkedIn pages, that's just sad. Too soon is being kind about this, and there's such a thing as 'rewrites' that might kill this concept before it ever escapes the writer's room. Nate • (chatter) 01:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft or delete - It might be too early, but this article will be needed. Move it to a draft space. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't needed with sourcing that depends on LinkedIn stalking and a directory of possible animation projects, which includes an Inspector Gadget reboot that's been "in development" for three years. As usual, let's wait for the network to say it's a go, because come when it's 'needed' the LinkedIn and ACTRA sources will be rightfully laughed off the page. Nate • (chatter) 04:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case it does get deleted EvergreenFir, we won't need a draft since you can always see the article here in case we need to add in back once it is confirmed by press releases. Giggett (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giggett Could always just stick it in your sandbox. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So yeah, you been given many valid reasons for why this article should be deleted, so I think it's time to just change your vote and end this discussion once in for all. Might as well get this over with and get it deleted before the 4th of July holiday weekend starts and several IP users start adding false content to the page. Giggett (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with deletion if you, as the main contributor to the page, are. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:47, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I created the page, and the only reason why I made the article this early is cus this season was completely fake, and yet it got its own article for weeks and nobody noticed, so I thought that why can't TRR get one also? Guess, it's gonna get deleted too even though this season is real. Giggett (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue in question for me is neither the existence of the subject nor the quality of the article; it is the notability of the subject. Notability generally depends on the availability of third-party reliable sources about the subject. Although I am pretty sure this subject will become notable in the future, right now it is just too soon, and this coverage from reliable sources doesn't exist yet. When the time comes and more information about the subject becomes known, I would be more than happy to support recreating the article. Sadly, Wikipedia does see some fake subjects every now and then that do lurk for a few weeks before they are discovered. If an article itself is a hoax, it should be deleted immediately per WP:CSD#G3, but it's a matter of how long it takes for someone to notice the error and take action to correct it. Mz7 (talk) 03:47, 4 July 2014 (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.