Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Le Batard is Highly Questionable

:{{la|Dan Le Batard is Highly Questionable}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Dan Le Batard is Highly Questionable}})

Article is premature per WP:FUTURE. No indication of current notability per WP:TVSHOW, in large part because it's still in the future. At present, this information is probably worth merging into Dan Le Batard, but it doesn't merit its own separate article. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Redirect as per nom's suggestion. Until we have a week of episodes to know what the format of the show will be (ESPN doesn't usually reveal formats of the programs until they actually take the air so that their competitors don't steal it), a harmless redirect is best for this one at this time. It's coming on September 12 barring complete disaster. Right now this text is too bare for its own article. Nate • (chatter) 06:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Strong keep Article meets GNG by virtue of its coverage; and does NOT violate CRYSTAL as its occurance is a reasonably sure things. And it's hardly the only TV show in the future to have it's own article...Pan Am? Whitney? Those articles are just as bare, with the exception of having infoboxes and cast lists. Also, what's the point of deleting the article now...it'll just be recreated in three weeks. Frankly, considering the short amount of time between the closure of the AFD and the first episode, this AFD is a pointless waste of time and borderline disruptive Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

::Is it really clear that the show will be notable even after it starts airing? It would help if some more sources can be found (now) that are independent of ESPN, the Miami Herald, and Dan Le Batard — sources which talk in some depth about the show, and not simply say that it is expected to happen. If the show really is notable now, then I think it's reasonable to expect some independent discussion now. The mere fact that other planned future TV shows have articles isn't a controlling argument (see WP:WAX); each such article needs to be considered on its own merits. WP:FUTURE / WP:CRYSTAL isn't a blanket ban on all articles covering future events; it does allow such material in certain cases; can this show meet the necessary burden of proof? Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

:::Per WP:TVSHOW, if a TV show airs on a network (of which ESPN is one), it is likely to be notable. Which again begs the question, "Why delete it if it's going to air very very soon", especially considering the guideline of not being in a rush. If you are going to make the argument that there are no reliable sources, you have to check yourself to make source there are none...and that looking at the more than 5,000 places that mention the show. And you yourself mention a reliable source...the Miami Herald. You also have misintrepreted WP:CRYSTAL...all I have to prove is that it is going to happen at a set date in the future (which I have proved with a source) for WP:CRYSTAL to not apply. You apparently don't understand WP:TVSHOW or WP:CRYSTAL; and all you seem to be doing here is wasting my and a lot of other people's time. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 19:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

::::I am not questioning whether the Miami Herald is a reliable source. I am concerned that since Dan Le Batard writes for the Herald, it might not be sufficiently independent of the subject to establish notability. And while I did see a bunch of references to the upcoming show in a Google search, none of them clearly appeared to me to contain significant coverage addressing the show in any amount of detail (as called for by WP:GNG). If you (the creator of the article) are aware of independent sources that do include significant coverage of what this show is expected to be when it airs, it would be very helpful for you to include them in the article. I submitted this AfD nomination in good faith, believing it to be based on a reasonable understanding and interpretation of policy — but if there is ultimately no consensus to delete, the article will naturally remain. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Strong delete. It is upcoming. So coverage in media are only announcing its start. That is not the same as notability. How do we know if it will be notable in the future, if it will even succeed, let alone make some sort of lasting impact? Delete as per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

:If it airs even one episode, it will pass the WP:TVSHOW guideline, as it's on a major network. Also, it has been covered in reliable sources, so it meets WP:GNG,. And therefore, it passes WP:CRYSTAL as it is notable and has a set air date. Furthermore, why delete this NOW? It will air in only 17 days; yours and others' arguments will be completely invalid then. So why delete it now if it'll be recreated in 17 days? A TV show does not need to make a lasting impact to have an article on this Wikipedia; you are setting the bar far too high and your policy basis is weak Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 00:10, 27 August 2011 (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.