Talk:Returning the Favor

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Awards"

In November 2017, Returning the Favor was honored along with four other shows with a "Got Your 6" certification by the Got Your 6 coalition. Got Your 6 helps to try and dispel the damaging stereotype of all veterans as “broken heroes" with a special focus being placed on how they are portrayed in popular culture.

Two sources are cited: LifeZette (not WP:RS) and MikeRowe.com (WP:SPS and not a reliable independent secondary source)

By convention, Wikipedia does not include non-notable awards, especially when the sources are not reliable. Guy (Help!) 06:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Variety article source has replaced the lesser value sources mentioned above, and would seem to satisfy this complaint. Inclusion seems to add value and context, and not UNDUE. -- Netoholic @ 18:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a highly POV statement of a non-notable award. Sure, the group sent round some press releases and got some traction because veterans, but seriously? Everybody has awards, and the vast majority are not notable, these ones included. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes

This article is supported by just enough sources to survive deletion. Most of them are mere namechecks, and some are tabloids and would not survive as an argument for WP:GNG. An episode list is grossly disproportionate to the (lack of) objective significance of the subject. Guy (Help!) 01:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you're wrong again. Have you considered un-watchlisting? --Netoholic @ 02:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, for an administrator, you should be well aware that long-term edit-warring is considered extremely disruptive. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As is long-term spamming of insignificant web TV series. Your point? Guy (Help!) 09:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's your personal opinion that it's insignificant and is non-enforceable. What isn't insignificant is the policy of WP:EW. If you, an administrator, need this to be told to you, then you need a better perspective on editing. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an objective fact. If it was significant, there would be non-trivial sources about the thing, rather than the namechecks which constitute virtually all the references to date. Guy (Help!) 11:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And that is your opinion. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, then: you replace the namechecks with in-depth coverage in reliable independent secondary sources, and I will change my opinion. Until then, my opinion is that the sources demonstrate it to be objectively insignificant. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't need to be indepth coverage to justify the existence of an episodes table. I really think you need to take a step back from this article before your behavior is brought into question on a more appropriate board. Esuka (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If your opinion is involved, then by definition its subjective, not objective. But thinking that way is what leads to edit warring because from your perspective, where your opinion is synonymous with "the truth", anyone that disagrees with you must either by lying or a kook. Dangerous. -- Netoholic @ 20:44, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the sources fail to establish more than marginal significance. Find sources that have substantive coverage rather than mere namechecks, and I will change my view. Amazingly, that never actually happens with this article. It's almost as if the sources don't lie, and it's genuinely insignificant. Weird how that goes. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Insignificant" is just a pejorative. Its either notable or it is not. And if you think its not, then just take it to AFD and we'll see. Stop wasting your time and ours with your subjective opinion about the show's general merit and stop demanding that editors to change your personal opinion on the show. That's not what talk pages are for (WP:NOTFORUM). -- Netoholic @ 21:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]