Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dotto Tech

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dotto Tech

[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)

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

Article about a TV show, and a WP:BLP of its host, which are both relying entirely on primary sources rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage that would pass WP:GNG. Full disclosure, I'm actually the original creator of the show's article (but not of the BLP), back in the day when a television series was granted an automatic presumption of notability as long as its existence was verifiable. This is, however, one of many areas where our inclusion standards have been tightened up considerably in the past decade -- TV shows must now be reliably sourced as the subject of media coverage to clear WP:TVSHOW. I cannot find any satisfactory coverage about this show, however -- even on a deep ProQuest search, all I'm actually getting is "Steve Dotto is the host of Dotto Tech" notes at the bottom of newspaper articles where Steve Dotto is the bylined author of the content and not its subject. But that's not how you source either a TV show or its host as notable -- they have to be the subject of coverage written by other people, not the creators of coverage about other things, to clear a Wikipedia sourcing standard. All of which means that neither the show nor the host gets an automatic notability pass just for existing, but neither of them is properly sourced as actually meeting the required standard of reliable source coverage about them. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2018 (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.