Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City Guys

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. Here's hoping editors can add newly found sources to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

City Guys[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Both sources are user-generated and therefore do not count as RS. One is specifically listed as UNreliable. Could not find SIGCOV online. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 01:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG. To start, we have SIGCOV in a couple books: [1] and [2]. Given the era there's likely to be more offline sources as well. It was on a major network for 5 years, so it's almost certain to be notable. —siro χ o 04:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The first book source seems ok, I can't open the second. I found this brief review in Uproxx, [3]. I'd give it a pass. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All I can find in newspapers are plot summaries in TV listings from the period it aired. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was studied as part of the new children's television law/guidelines [4], [5], second one analyzed the demographics that watched and didn't watch the show... This talks about it briefly [6]. Coverage in ScreenRant, a marginally RS [7], similar coverage in Bustle, also a mid-range RS [8]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw the nom if you'll add this to the article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve: It meets most qualifications for notability, but it seems likely to have been tagged merely for lack of citations. I’d argue that the article instead merits reference improvements, and added detail to certain sections. TVTonightOKC (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2023 (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.