Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Step It Up and Dance

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. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Step It Up and Dance

Step It Up and Dance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article has no references establishing notability and violates WP:CBALL. SimpleParadox 01:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel the page is worthwhile as the programme has an entry on IMDb and various different articles exist online discussing it. I have added two external links, one to a Variety article about the show and the other to a Hollywood Reporter article discussing it, as well as a link to its IMDb profile.

I plan to add information to the page as it becomes available and obviously when the programme starts it will contain more information.

I trust this is sufficient.Le David (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: David Rush's stated reasoning seems sufficient. After his explanation, and the inclusion of the Variety and Hollywood Reporter article I would be happy to withdraw my nomination, although I am not sure that is an option at this point. --SimpleParadox 17:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm. Seems to be notable, satisfying the general notability guideline, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I don't think WP:CBALL applies, because it doesn't appear to be speculative. I say keep, though I can't stand the idea of another insufferable reality show, marking the effect of the writer's strike. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 03:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep... the IMDB link is NOT reliable for establishing anything of fact, as it is user-content generated I believe. That said, the other two sources establish the existence of the show... national syndication would make me think it's going to be notable enough to support an article. Unless canceled I think this should be a keep.Epthorn (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - those two articles below the IMDB link suffice for evidence of its existence. Scarian^Talk 17:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Will I remove the "Articles for deletion" tag or do I need to wait till a certain number of 'Keeps' accumulate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Rush (talk • contribs) 21:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

One must wait until there is a clear consensus for Keep/Delete/Merge/Whatever before this AfD can be closed. But, no, don't remove the AfD tag. Scarian^Talk 22:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply: David just wait for an administrator to come by and close the AfD, which should happen fairly soon. Meanwhile, you can continue to edit the article. Cheers. --SimpleParadox 22:23, 18 December 2007 (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.