That's the Question: Donald D23 talk to me 23:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep There are clear secondary sources cited; no need for deletion based on that alone.  ChrisP2K5 ( talk ) 01:20, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per ChrisP2K5 MNewnham ( talk ) 18:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Per ChrisP2K5 — Maile ( talk ) 00:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: To analyze the secondary sources, especially with respect to depth.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Has Secondary sources like NYT, etc.  CSMention269 ( talk ) 06:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] the NYT is a simple listing and comes nowhere near the depth required.  Star Mississippi 14:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  I deleted the so-called reception.  You can't take a 11-word mention before the program has even aired and call that "reception".  At best, it is an anticipation, and is no more significant than being mentioned in the yellow pages.  Geschichte ( talk ) 10:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No opinion .  I created this years ago when I was trying to tackle GSN originals that lacked articles.  Admittedly, it does appear that there is unfortunately not very much out there in terms of secondary sourcing.  On the other hand, while I do consider myself to be an inclusionist, I find it a bit hard to believe that a show that aired for multiple seasons on a national cable network lacks any or all notability to the point where it doesn't at least justify a short article documenting the show's existence.  At this point, I find myself pretty disillusioned with some of this site's policies, so I'm not sure I'm in the best position to make a keep or delete vote here without a conflict of interest.  With that said, I'll gladly let others decide the fate of this discussion.  -- Bcschneider53 ( talk ) 16:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : None of the cited sources provide anything close to SIGCOV.  A listing in a TV guide, or a passing mention in a newspaper, do not provide any value in terms of notability.  I'm surprised to see all the WP:PERX here hanging their ! vote on someone who, more than likely, didn't bother checking those secondary sources.  Owen× ☎ 19:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Needs more citations that are WP: SIGCOV and WP: INDEPENDENT.  All I can see is mere mentions and premier which incredibly is not a criteria for deletion and as such, there was online sources still existing on its creation date that could have taken coverage if the game show is/was notable.  Personal point of views fails WP: THREE .  Even the NYT article wasn't broadly covered!  Otuọcha ( talk ) 06:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Shadow311 ( talk ) 15:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network#Former original programming per WP:ATD ; generic GSN show from their most generic producer.  Nate • ( chatter ) 17:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Game Show Network#Former original programming : I at least somewhat agree with the article creator that a multi-season show on a nationally-distributed service optimally should get the sufficient significant coverage to be deemed notable, but that's not a fait accompli , and the sourcing we do have here is thin enough that redirecting as an alternative to deletion is probably the best we can do.  (For what it's worth, an earlier article on this show at That's the Question (U.S. game show) was

Discussion outcome: redirect