343:
substantially. That's enough to change the balance. Whether there is any point in having a separate article in a case like this, where the content could be easily presented in the main article on the performer, is another matter. The deletion criteria are irrelevant to this, and we have no adequate way of handling disputed merges--we could discuss them in AfD, but if it is possible by the reasonable application of the rules to make an article, there is no basis in policy or guidelines for making a decision either way-- nor for that matter is there any basis for making a decision at the talk page except the general feeling of what would be the best presentation. Personally, I think it would be best in a single article, but it does not really matter to me, and there is no requirement that it be done that way if anyone wants to go to the trouble (My reason is that at this point, it's the most important individual show related to the performer,) I note that the merge has never been performed, and it would have been much simpler to perform it than to come here and argue. To that extent I agree with
Spartaz. However, both his criterion for when there should be a separate article and the criterion I gave are just reasonable preferences and our own private views. If someone has an opposite opinion, how do we decide? AfD and Del Rev decisions are only rational because there are actual criteria to go by.
439:. I am the user that JohnCD directed here. Regardless of whether the added sources are valid enough, I think the page should return. The sources can be improved later. What matters now is that it is a relevant page. Conan O'Brien has hosted three variety shows. Two of them are finished and one is ongoing. There are seperate pages still in existence for all three. Chris Gethard hosts one variety show that is still ongoing and very separate from his other work and personal life. The show, while on a public access network, itunes and streaming on his site instead of a major network, is still a significant entity in its own right. It has a large cast of characters and 62 episodes so far. It needs its own page.
456:
The decision was the right decision at the time, but now that a number of quality sources have come up, it is worth converting back to an article. I think I caused some confusion when recommending the wrong venue, but since it had closed at AFD as redirect, and when I revert it back into a redirect,
308:
the AfD which was closed as "redirect". The consensus was clearly of the "merge and redirect" variety, rather than "delete and redirect" and perhaps in retrospect the closing statement should have been explicit. Anyway, the article seems never to have been deleted and the redirect was not protected.
295:
the close and suggest the nominator edits in the sources and material in
Gethers's bio which is otherwise looking a bit thin on sourcing. The usual thing on wikipedia is for material to sit in one combined location so readers don't need to go look at two pages for closely related stuff. The time to
286:
Its arguable that source 1 is in depth, source 2 is OK, source 3 is about the person rather than the show, source 4 had a silly splash screen and I couldn't be bothered to click through it and source 4 is a press release and doesn't count. I'm personally not seeing enough here for a standalone
342:
There are enough good sources for an article--the NYT has substantial coverage of the show, is an unquestionable RS, and the content of the article speaks specifically about actual notability. There is no requirement that the article be only about the subject as long as it covers the subject
367:
The technical outcome must be that the AfD is endorsed, but then, nobody's challenging it. The question here is whether it's appropriate to create an article in place of the redirect on the basis of the new sources found; and the answer has got to be "yes" because of
325:
led to the right result though they were conducted in a very collegial spirit. Editorially I agree with
Spartaz in favouring at this stage a single article covering the individual and his show.
422:. Proper close. Nothing to overturn even if things do change. Reviewing, I think the articles should be merged. Possibly the other way. This should be an article talk page discussion. --
156:
457:
none of these solid sources existed in the article. Regardless, changing the outcome of a relatively recent AFD shouldn't be unilateral and instead be done by the community.
372:. Where there are genuinely new sources that weren't previously considered, good faith editors can turn redirects into articles on the basis of their own judgment. DRV has
48:
34:
243:
144:
43:
267:
165:
479:
249:
261:
177:
472:
39:
74:– AfD closure endorsed, but recreation permitted based on new sources without prejudice to a fresh AfD at editorial discretion. –
389:
244:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/last-night-tina-fey-seth-meyers-and-others-surprised-one-of-their-biggest-fans-on-public-television/
207:
225:
21:
268:
http://thoughtcatalog.com/2012/the-chris-gethard-show-is-the-best-cable-access-tv-youre-not-watching/#ZEOPJHTXFTFL6QlA.99
318:
189:
114:
237:
79:
512:
359:
183:
94:
17:
195:
501:
484:
448:
444:
431:
414:
393:
334:
300:
280:
250:
http://austin.culturemap.com/newsdetail/09-02-11-15-12-why-i-love-the-chris-gethard-show-and-you-should-too/
229:
83:
262:
http://splitsider.com/2011/10/no-cool-kids-inside-the-insane-unpredictable-world-of-the-chris-gethard-show/
467:
322:
309:
My understanding is that in such cases the redirect may be reverted (and re-reverted) without recourse to
110:
70:
296:
consider splitting off the material to a separate page is when the article becomes bloated and overlong.
242:"Last Night, Tina Fey, Seth Meyers, And Others Surprised One Of Their Biggest Fans On Public Television"
440:
75:
385:
347:
213:
178:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/arts/television/the-rise-of-the-anti-talk-show.html?pagewanted=all
427:
497:
492:
per SMarshall, above. New sources == new article, then new AfD discussion if someone disagrees.
255:
458:
369:
330:
291:
a separate for
Getherd himself. I think one article covering both is fine for the moment so I
221:
188:"Chris Gethard On IFC: 'Adopt-A-Comic' Program Bringing Comedian And Author To Cable Channel"
410:
402:
310:
200:"The Carson of Cable Access: Comedian Chris Gethard throws a party on the public airwaves."
173:
The page was deleted because of a lack of outside sources. Please consider the following:
377:
201:
208:
http://stereogum.com/961721/watch-ted-leo-play-a-really-awesome-chris-gethard-show/video/
423:
493:
355:
314:
317:
but with appropriate talk page discussion bearing in mind the third paragraph under
326:
297:
272:
217:
190:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/20/chris-gethard-coming-to-ifc_n_1811575.html
260:"No Cool Kids": Inside the Insane, Unpredictable World of The Chris Gethard Show
238:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ifc-developing-series-based-comedian-364021
406:
184:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703992704576305843684193256.html
236:"IFC Developing Series Based on Comedian Chris Gethard's 'Bad Idea' Book"
196:
http://www.ifc.com/fix/2012/09/have-you-watched-the-chris-gethard-show-yet
351:
266:"The Chris Gethard Show Is The Best Cable Access TV You’re Not Watching"
405:. To avoid splitting the discussion, I have directed that user here.
256:
http://www.timeout.com/newyork/comedy/the-chris-gethard-show
248:"Why I Love The Chris Gethard Show (and you should, too)"
206:"Watch Ted Leo Play A Really Awesome Chris Gethard Show"
202:
http://nymag.com/arts/tv/features/chris-gethard-2012-4/
151:
137:
129:
121:
194:"Have you watched the Chris Gethard Show yet?"
8:
93:The following is an archived debate of the
63:
321:. I do not think the two discussions at
7:
515:of the page listed in the heading.
454:Endorse original but create new now
176:“The Rise of the Anti-Talk Show”
28:
403:WP:REFUND#The Chris Gethard Show
401:see also arguments presented at
182:"Scouring the City for a Laugh"
511:The above is an archive of the
502:17:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
485:16:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
449:04:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
432:03:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
415:21:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
394:21:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
335:09:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
301:03:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
281:05:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
230:05:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
84:23:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
1:
319:WP:Guide_to_deletion#Closure
538:
254:"The Chris Gethard Show"
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
518:Please do not modify it.
100:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
287:article about the show
323:User talk:Dennis Brown
111:The Chris Gethard Show
71:The Chris Gethard Show
97:of the page above.
525:
524:
483:
475:
470:
392:
364:
350:comment added by
233:
216:comment added by
59:14 September 2012
49:2012 September 15
35:2012 September 13
529:
520:
490:Allow recreation
477:
473:
468:
384:
382:
363:
344:
232:
210:
168:
163:
154:
140:
132:
124:
102:
64:
53:
33:
537:
536:
532:
531:
530:
528:
527:
526:
516:
513:deletion review
378:
345:
211:
164:
162:
159:
150:
149:
143:
136:
135:
128:
127:
120:
119:
98:
95:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
535:
533:
523:
522:
507:
506:
505:
504:
487:
451:
434:
417:
396:
365:
337:
303:
171:
170:
160:
147:
141:
133:
125:
117:
105:
104:
89:
88:
87:
86:
61:
56:
47:
44:2012 September
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
534:
521:
519:
514:
509:
508:
503:
499:
495:
491:
488:
486:
482:
481:
476:
471:
465:
464:
461:
455:
452:
450:
446:
442:
441:Dr Clocktopus
438:
435:
433:
429:
425:
421:
418:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
397:
395:
391:
387:
383:
381:
375:
371:
366:
361:
357:
353:
349:
341:
338:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
307:
304:
302:
299:
294:
290:
285:
284:
283:
282:
279:
278:
275:
270:
269:
264:
263:
258:
257:
252:
251:
246:
245:
240:
239:
234:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
209:
204:
203:
198:
197:
192:
191:
186:
185:
180:
179:
174:
167:
158:
153:
146:
139:
131:
123:
116:
112:
109:
108:
107:
106:
103:
101:
96:
91:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
517:
510:
489:
478:
462:
459:
453:
436:
419:
398:
379:
373:
346:— Preceding
339:
305:
292:
288:
276:
273:
271:
265:
259:
253:
247:
241:
235:
212:— Preceding
205:
199:
193:
187:
181:
175:
172:
99:
92:
69:
58:
380:S Marshall
370:WP:NOTBURO
424:SmokeyJoe
311:WP:REFUND
76:T. Canens
494:Jclemens
480:Join WER
437:Overturn
399:Comment:
360:contribs
348:unsigned
340:Overturn
226:contribs
214:unsigned
20: |
420:Endorse
374:no role
327:Thincat
306:Endorse
298:Spartaz
293:endorse
218:Phanink
166:restore
130:history
460:Dennis
407:JohnCD
315:WP:DRV
277:Hanink
463:Brown
274:Peter
152:watch
145:links
52:: -->
16:<
498:talk
445:talk
428:talk
411:talk
356:talk
331:talk
222:talk
138:logs
122:edit
115:talk
80:talk
32:<
352:DGG
313:or
289:and
157:XfD
155:) (
22:Log
500:)
469:2¢
466:-
447:)
430:)
413:)
376:.—
362:)
358:•
333:)
228:)
224:•
82:)
42::
496:(
474:©
443:(
426:(
409:(
390:C
388:/
386:T
354:(
329:(
220:(
169:)
161:|
148:|
142:|
134:|
126:|
118:|
113:(
78:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.