Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finding Stuff Out

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, no prejudice against recreation based on reliable sources--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Stuff Out

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

Seems like a non-notable program. Even the most basic coverage from newspapers seems to be found nowhere. From their dates, it can easily be deduced that the Google Books hits are false positives. CtP (t • c) 19:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article as written misses the actual strongest claim of notability, which is that the show was a shortlisted nominee for two 2013 Canadian Screen Awards (Best Children's or Youth Non-Fiction Program and Best Children's Cross-Platform Project). That is enough to justify an article, certainly — but given the lack of any actual reliable source referencing being cited here, it's not enough to justify this version of the article. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can actually locate and add real sources, but in its current form it's a delete (albeit without prejudice against future recreation if somebody creates a properly sourced version in the future). Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 05:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in reliable sources as required by the WP:GNG. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2013 (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.