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. Secret ^account 18:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Graysons[edit]

The Graysons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Page clearly fails the general notability guideline for starters. It's a show that will not be created, and should not have had a page until it was created. This is why films don't get pages until they actually enter production and/or are released. The information might be more suitable for Dick Grayson, but even then, all of the info was mere "talk" about a show, that was killed by the studio after a couple of weeks. Yes, I'm aware of Bruce Wayne (TV series), which I'm not convinced needs an article either, but another article existing is not a reason to keep this one. I say, it should be deleted. If anyone thinks the information is actually useful, then maybe we should paste it over into Dick Grayson's article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete needs a line on the dick grayson article but that's about it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I count two sources. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two sources don't constitute keeping an article. None of the sources have significant coverage (there's a paragraph of information here), and both basically say "hey, we're doing a show" and then "Actually, no we aren't".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both seem to me a significant level of coverage. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with a crystal hammer. The CW has confirmed this show isn't going to happen, so what's the point?SPNic (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am struggling with the idea that what is basically a rejected idea for a TV show could possibly have any notability. Nancy ^talk 15:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet the article passes the basic threshold of WP:N. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but add a sentence about the proposed premiere date to the Dick Grayson article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To be clear, there are three sources for the articles. Two are Variety articles that are primarily on the Graysons. Both are significant-length articles. The third (footnote 2) is wrongly cited - it should point to the Mediaweek article that the fansite linked to itself references. That article, [1], is 1/3 on The Graysons. By any remotely normal application of WP:N, this article meets the basic threshold of the GNG. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I read the entire article on both Variety sources, there wasn't a lot of viable content in there anyway. Having a whole article in Variety doesn't mean it's significant, when the "whole" article isn't long to begin with and a good portion of it isn't directly about the show itself. Barely meeting the general notability guideline, and that's a questionable barely in my opinion, does not mean that the subject needs its own article. The GNG also says, "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews covers topics of present news coverage." Given that the topic of said show went from "we're going to make a show" to "no we aren't" in about a month, and had limited coverage in the media, I think it's clear that this was merely a "short burst of news reports".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are not particularly short. I tend to think that the "news source" clause was more a function of avoiding BLP issues than for something like this. I mean, I think there's a good amount of info across the three sources. There's a good amount of detail to inject. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have two primary sources. The first, when the show was first announced, detailing who was behind it and what they would like to do with it. Then the second was announcing that the show wasn't going to get made. That's not a lot of information, or coverage to even begin to suggest that this show was notable enough for its own article. They never even made any progress with writing, casting, getting a director for a pilot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Variety is not a primary source. What are you talking about? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to the primarily used source, not "primary" source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or merge: incomplete or cancelled media does not harm notability. In fact, StarCraft: Ghost reveals that they can even reach featured article status. It looks like there was some notable excitement and details about the development of this series before it was canceled. Is there enough to support a standalone article? Not sure at this point. But if there isn't, a merger might be appropriate for coverage elsewhere. Randomran (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't cancelled media - it's an idea that was floated and went nowhere - it's entirely different from starcraft that was a work in progress and had 5 years worth of material to pull from to construct an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. If the article can't be expanded, I'd support a merge to a suitable topic. Randomran (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unrealized possible television series. At best, should have a one sentence mention in Dick Grayson, but otherwise its not notable, has no likely future notability, and the three little sources are not "significant coverage." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• (Delete and) Redirect to Dick Grayson#The Graysons. Likely search-term. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect per Sgeurka; as I said in the last AfD this was all speculation, and it turned out to be all for naught for a show which never reached the pilot state, much less casting. Keep it as a redirect and mention it within an appropriate place in the Grayson article as an idea which never got off the ground. Nate • (chatter) 20:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dick Grayson or possibly Bruce Wayne (TV series), since the two seem vaguely related. Also, wherever it ends up, you might want to use this source, a lengthy article from IGN on why the show shouldn't be made.  Paul  730 21:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge & redirect This is an instance where a specialized notability guideline, WP:NFF and the general notability guideline contradict each other. There are enough sources apparently to satisfy the GNG, but NFF says that if principal photography hasn't commenced, we should not have a separate article - (this part seems to be more of a style guideline than a notability guideline). In any case, the existence of reliable sources demonstrate notability for the content, which appears to have been partially merged into Dick Grayson. This and GFDL rule out deletion rather than merge/redirection, as usual.John Z (talk) 23:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, they don't. First, it isn't clear that 3 sources (one of which is from a fansite) actually satisfies GNG. GNG does not give a source count. Two sources, one saying they are going to make a show and another saying that they aren't, do not constitute "satifying the GNG".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel like you're being disingenuous here, given that I already pointed out above that the fansite source should be changed to the Mediaweek article the fansite is linking to. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I was largely arguing against delete & redirect rather than merge & redirect ( a kind of keep), because the first is usually not a good idea because of attribution problems.John Z (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What attribution problems?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N with its lack of significant coverage. Multiple sources doesn't mean significant coverage. Jay32183 (talk) 08:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability seems to be established. Does it really matter if the show didn't come to exist if there is sufficient coverage of a show to establish notability?Redirect and Merge not notable enough for its own article, but having it somewhere in a list would be better than deletion since the article does provide two reliable secondary sources. -Drilnoth (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does significant coverage come from a single news outlet reporting on the event? How is it significant coverage when the only thing said is "we're going to make a show" and then a month later (no new news actually occurring in this month) the studio saying "no, we aren't making this show". You're basically saying that every idea for a show that gets mentioned in a published source needs its own page?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dick Grayons's page already appears to have all of this information, it's just missing the sources themselves. There really isn't anything to merge.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, on the basis that there's just enough notability to make this a necessary topic to cover, but the most likely merge topic, Dick Grayson, seems to inappropriate (forcing a comic page to cover a failed TV show). I cannot think of any other article where a merge would be appropriate: The CW Television Network or its list of broadcast shows seems to be a poor choice too. --MASEM 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a show that was going to be about Dick Grayson, the fact that it was called "The Graysons" doesn't change that. Smallville isn't called "Clark Kent", yet the show is about him. I'm not seeing how a failed TV show idea (idea, not even an actual show) even warrants mentioning on Wikipedia to begin with.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The show was covered extensively in media. That's more than enough to warrant mentioning here; question is where. 23skidoo (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of those sources were reporting information from the original source, which was Variety. Ten people repeating what one person said doesn't mean that ten people were covering the story, it just means that ten people copied the statement from another source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Dick Grayson. Discussion of media portrayals of a character is completely relevant to an article on that character, whether the productions got off the ground or not. And there are multiple media sources reporting on this cancelled project. I agree there's no reason for it to have its own article but I see no reason why it can't be mentioned in the Dick Grayson article (or a "Portrayals of Dick Grayson" article if one is made). 23skidoo (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If ten people repeat what one person said, that would be x. We seem to have y, where ten people comment on something one person drew to their attention. That's called news coverage. It's like how one person declares the result of an election but a lot of people comment on it. We don't just make a decision on what one person or ten people say, we have to weigh it all up too and evaluate in a neutral manner and maintain balance. The balance of this article's worth includes its intersection from a number of articles, including Smallville, Robin, Warner Brothers and more. Presentationally and for the utility of editors, readers and the encyclopedia it makes more sense to have an article convey all the information concisely that send readers through a series of links on an Eater Egg hunt to discern all the information. Hiding T 22:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except, I don't see 10 reliable news organizations actually covering this television show idea. When you say "according to Variety", you aren't reporting anything new you're just restating the same info. If there is a redirect of "The Grayons" to Dick Grayson, the most obvious location, (which is a different discussion that would take place on the talk page), then you don't have an easter egg hunt.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've flicked through the google news results and there's a link [2] which uses the Variety report to comment on the fan reaction. That's doing far more than the Variety report, which never mentioned fan reaction. Now okay, that's just one more article, not ten, but for me that takes the article far past the needs of policies. And if you redirect to Dick Grayson, then you naturally have an Easter Egg hunt because you have to trawl through an entire article to find the relevant facts, some of which may not even be included. Hiding T 13:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is an easter egg hunt? It's called a pipped link, and the section already contains basically all of the same information. It's a bit more terse in its writing, and doesn't have the sourcing, but it's pretty much all already there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my day they were not "pipped links" but piped links.  :) From memory they used to be guided against because if the section was removed or renamed the redirect became useless. I see that times have changed on that score. However, given that the section was created after the article, and given the edit histories of the section and the article, I believe per the terms of the GFDL the article cannot be deleted for copyright reasons. Hiding T 14:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If a section is renamed, then you typically just rename the redirect. As for removing, if it's removed then clearly someone felt the information wasn't worth reporting and we're back to the idea of deleting this article. There are not "copyright" issues within Wikipedia. No one can claim that Article X on Wikipedia violates the copyright of Article B on Wikipedia. That's like saying you're going to sue yourself.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You have a serious misunderstanding of copyright issues on Wikipedia. Everything I add to Wikipedia, Wikpedia uses under the GFDL, but I still retain copyright on it. If Wikipedia breaches the terms of the GFDL, then they are open to a suit from me. The authors of The Graysons article can sue if the article is deleted, since their contributions have not been acknowledged through reference to the article history per the terms of the GFDL and Wikipedia's compliance with it. Please see Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License. Hiding T 14:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • • I'm sorry, but that theory does not apply to an open editing encyclopedia. Secondly, articles are deleted all the time, I don't believe anyone has every attempted to "sue" Wikipedia because their article was deleted. Given that no editor, or team of editors, owns any article on Wikipedia, the theory that they "own the copyright" to something they wrote on Wikipedia is flawed and misplaced. Because Wiki has an open editing policy, you would have an extremely difficult time proving that you "authored" an article beyond a few words, given that once you add something to the page I can easily go in and reword the entire statement. I think it is you that has a misunderstanding of the GDFL policy. Lastly, even when a page is deleted, the history itself isn't fully deleted. Just because you cannot see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, as Administrators can re-instate a page (with its history returned) if need be.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You did read the GFDL, didn't you? You have read Wikipedia:Copyrights, specifically (my emphasis) you retain copyright to your materials. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract the GFDL license for the copies of materials that you place here; these copies will remain under GFDL until they enter the public domain. You are aware that we have to maintain contribution history per the terms of the GFDL, yes? This is explained at Help:Merging and moving pages:The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires. How this applies in this instance is that we have text from The Graysons influencing and being introduced into Dick Grayson. That to me falls into copyrightable expression as opposed to copyrightable facts, as per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. This is the main reason we ask that when an afd is in progress no-one merge the page anywhere, since, in order to respect the GFDL we have to point to the page history to credit them. We do this because every variation of a text means, under the terms of the GFDL, that the author of the text which has been varied must be credited, otherwise the GFDL is null and void and you have breached copyright. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete, Wikipedia:What the GFDL is not and Wikipedia:Revocation of GFDL is not permitted for more expansion of the points. You are aware that one reason we cannot delete redirects is if they have been so merged, yes, per ((tl:R from merge))? Are you an administrator, because if you are I believe it is shocking that you do not have the correct grasp of the GFDL, since this is a serious legal issue. This may warrant discussion at WP:AN. Hiding T 16:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't repeat this again. YOU DO NOT OWN what you add to Wikipedia. You are adding information that other people own, YOU do not own anything on here. Now, let me explain your misunderstanding. You are applying the merge guideline to the deletion guideline. When we delete something, we are not bound by any contract to "keep the history to preserve the GDFL". Who the hell was talking about merging before the AfD was closed? No one. That information was already on the Dick Grayson article before this AfD took place. If a full merge takes place, it will happen AFTER this AfD is closed, as I told you this before. Please note the difference between loosing your GDFL license, and being sued by an editor of Wikipedia because you "deleted their article". They only thing that is "theirs" is their particular choice in words. If the article is deleted outright, then it should denote that we don't believe that content is relevant period - in such case it would be removed from Dick Grayson as well. If we determine that it shouldn't have a page, but it should be noted, then it will be redirected (thus preserving your edit history). You're twisting what the GDFL says and what this AfD is trying to do into some time of violation of someone's copyright. It isn't. Stop wasting this AfD's space with your useless dribble about the GDFL.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for keeping this civil. I won't repeat this again either. You are wrong. Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights. Now, you can apologise for your emotional out of character outburst, or you can walk away, because this isn't a battleground and I won't trade insults. Your choice. Hiding T 14:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• • • <edit conflict>I just want to reflect on the fact that I don't think anyone calling for deletion necessarily endorses deletion so much as merging, and looking at the first afd I think the road to tread in taking this forwards is working out how best to present this information in our encyclopedia. No-one appears to be arguing it has no relevance to our coverage of Dick Grayson, no-one appears to state the article has an issue with WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:NOR. All we're arguing over is how it fits in with a guideline, and I dispute the nominator's assertion that it clearly fails the guidance at WP:NOT, guidance, I hasten to add which is not empirical but subjective in nature. I really do not think deletion is the answer here. I'm failing to see any merge discussion on the article talk page. What did I miss? Hiding T 13:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • • My first thought is, "why is Wikipedia reporting on a failed TV idea", something that didn't even make it past the "hey, we got an idea" phase. Just because something meets the barest of criteria for notability does not mean that Wikipedia needs an article on it, let alone to mention it. After that, the best option is to leave it on the Dick Grayson article. P.S. I never said anything about WP:NOT. I'm sure that a merge discussion will be taking place if/when this AfD is closed as no-consensus or keep. :D  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This has to be closed as keep, per the terms of the GFDL, as I have stated above. Apologies on WP:NOT, I meant WP:NOTE. As to why we have an article "reporting on a failed TV idea", it's because there are reliable sources to summarise. It really is that simple. What Wikipedia merits an article on is somewhere in between nothing and everything. I guess the one thing we can all agree on is that we're here because we don't know where the line is between those two extremes. I think, though, that it is somewhat dishonourable, disingenuous and counter-productive to on the one hand insist on reliable sources, and then on the other hand say, ah, you may have found them but they are still not good enough. When I play football, we keep the goalposts still. ;| Hiding T 14:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is no issue with the GFDL, because there is no indication that content was copied from one article to the other. They appear to be written independently using the same sources. We don't have to retain this history if we don't keep any of its content, even if those contents are similar to those of another article. Jay32183 (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • In my opinion I think the two articles shared authors and that one article informed the other, which for me means we should respect the GFDL and merge and redirect rather than delete. I'm not sure I agree they were written independent of each other. I will confess at being cautious, but I fail to see the harm that such actions will cause when everyone seems to agree a redirect can be left behind. It seems morally we should simply merge and redirect to cover all bases rather than simply delete. Hiding T 14:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge anything worth merging per above, or delete if there is none. Having an article in a magazine does not mean we must have a perma-stub article, when the subject is better treated as a section in a wider article. GDFL is a none-issue - if content is copied in merge, just have to say where it was copied from, and the original writer will be found in the history of the redirect. If page is deleted and one sentence written in Dick Grayson, then is no copyright infringedYobmod (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2008 (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.