Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Eyre (1973 TV serial)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Jane Eyre (1973 TV serial)
Non-notable, no refs IronDuke 18:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The BBC has a long tradition of excellence in producing TV drama. Perhaps some text from the IMDb listing (which counts as a reference) could be rewritten and added to the article. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 20:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment It could indeed. And yet, a warmed-over copyvio sidestep from IMDB wouldn't make it notable. As for the BBC, they do indeed have a long tradition of etc., etc. That's why, I think, we have an article on them. IronDuke 20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment You mean this page? It provides nothing. IMDb is a reference, but it is NOT a reliable source. Like WP, anyone can add anything to IMDb. I could list myself as a cast member in Casablanca, and it wouldn't even be corrected for a few weeks. IMDb can confirm cast lists, but nothing else; what could one pull from an IMDb listing, a bit of trivia that may or may not be otherwise verifiable? -- Kicking222 01:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment. IMDb is not a wiki. Submitted information is not added immediately or unedited. -- Necrothesp 17:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep; the subject is clearly notable. However, all four tv series articles appear to be nothing else than year+cast+summary (the latter is really redundant). Merging all of them into one (if no info is added) could be an easy solution to their lack of content. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 20:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment If it's notable, can you say who has noted it? IronDuke 20:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe the people who decided to produce a DVD out of this series 23 years after it was initially broadcast [1]? The people who entered a review on Amazon? Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 20:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Amazon reviews can be made by anyone. It's like quoting a MySpace page. What I'm getting at is that there have been no critical reviews. It has made, AFAIK, zero impact on any culture. Just cause something appeared once on TV (even if it gets reissued by someone looking to turn a quick buck) doesn't make it notable. It isn't even close. !IronDuke 20:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- There were probably several reviews when the series was first broadcast, but locating them might require a visit to a library that has a collection of British newspapers from 1973 on microfilm. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk |contribs) 21:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Amazon reviews can be made by anyone. It's like quoting a MySpace page. What I'm getting at is that there have been no critical reviews. It has made, AFAIK, zero impact on any culture. Just cause something appeared once on TV (even if it gets reissued by someone looking to turn a quick buck) doesn't make it notable. It isn't even close. !IronDuke 20:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe the people who decided to produce a DVD out of this series 23 years after it was initially broadcast [1]? The people who entered a review on Amazon? Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 20:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Even an ancient review by a faceless hack in `73 would not confer notability, per se. IronDuke 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- (to IronDuke) There is a difference between citing a source to support a statement and citing a source to backup the notability of a subject. The latter only shows that someone who is independent on the subject has considered the subject interesting/important enough to talk about it. I myself would not made an article out of Amazon reviews; the Amazon reviews only show that someone was interested in the series enough to write something about it.
- Of course, if your idea of notability is "having a lasting impact on a culture", what I said makes no sense to you. Good luck on trying to enforce such definition of notability on Wikipedia, then. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 21:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your warm wishes. It's true, I'd like to keep WP from metastisizing into a giant cruft-magnet, and urge other editors to join me in this. However, I completely understand if you don't want to be a part of that. IronDuke 21:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment If it's notable, can you say who has noted it? IronDuke 20:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep of course. Fg2 00:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per others - JNighthawk 00:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep if only on grounds of adaptation of one of the most well known books in the langauge. obviously it's only a stub at momment & reviews will tend to be on paper in archives (1973, remember? no internet!) Bsnowball 11:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment No internet in 1973? Dangit, why do people never tell me these things? IronDuke 03:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- dumb joke, comment cos it's difficult to work out where to start. but seriously, what it is yr NN claim based on other than some version or other of "i haven't heard of it?" regarding the no-sources, there's a specific template for that, & u shld have put that up 1st. & if u don't know, for instance, how well known the book is (from which some notablility follows), maybe u cld leave these subjects to others. (yes, this happens to be a personal crusade of mine, but realy, you cld have been informed of all this on the article's talk page, & the article probably wld have been improved, all w/out clogging up afd). & obviously point of above is (as the guidline says, but perhaps shld spell out in bold) high hits is prob. notability, but not necessarily other way around esp. frm 1973. so, justifications pls? → bsnowball 14:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is no way to prove something is non-notable. Is that so hard to grasp? If someone puts an article up about their dog Fluffy, and I wanted to delete it, how would I prove Fluffy wasn't notable? It would be up to the article's editor to, when challenged, come back and say "Oh, Fluffy saved a schoolbus full of kids from drowning." If somebody wanted to come up with a reference saying that this production was somehow notable, as opposed to all the many, many adaptations there have been before and since, please do so. Happy to be proven wrong. And no, no notability whatever "follows" from the trivial reproduction of a non-trivial work. IronDuke
- dumb joke, comment cos it's difficult to work out where to start. but seriously, what it is yr NN claim based on other than some version or other of "i haven't heard of it?" regarding the no-sources, there's a specific template for that, & u shld have put that up 1st. & if u don't know, for instance, how well known the book is (from which some notablility follows), maybe u cld leave these subjects to others. (yes, this happens to be a personal crusade of mine, but realy, you cld have been informed of all this on the article's talk page, & the article probably wld have been improved, all w/out clogging up afd). & obviously point of above is (as the guidline says, but perhaps shld spell out in bold) high hits is prob. notability, but not necessarily other way around esp. frm 1973. so, justifications pls? → bsnowball 14:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as someone who planned to deprod this. BBC adaptation of Jane Eye. This is a question? --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "This is a question?" This is an argument? IronDuke 03:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- This just seems a little obvious. A BBC serial of one of the best known novels in the English language. To say it's non-notable doesn't seem all that logical. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- But that's nothing more than argument by assertion. If it is so notable, surely someone must have noted it, e.g., "This is the finest adaptation of any novel there has ever been." Or even, "This is the finest adaptation of Jane Eyre there has ever been." IronDuke 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Being a guy in Massachusetts lacking access to British papers, no one can say for sure at the moment, but given that it's still getting attention today, this may call for a little common sense. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- But that's nothing more than argument by assertion. If it is so notable, surely someone must have noted it, e.g., "This is the finest adaptation of any novel there has ever been." Or even, "This is the finest adaptation of Jane Eyre there has ever been." IronDuke 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- This just seems a little obvious. A BBC serial of one of the best known novels in the English language. To say it's non-notable doesn't seem all that logical. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment "This is a question?" This is an argument? IronDuke 03:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. We have many articles on TV series and films. There is absolutely no reason why this one should be any less notable than any of the others. -- Necrothesp 17:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please see my "yes this is crap but there's lots of crap on WP so what?" point on the talk page. IronDuke 03:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep It's notable. Major television film production. --Oakshade 06:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - It's a television series.. of course its notable.. MatthewFenton (talk · contribs · count · email) 09:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep as above. Seriously, we are debating if a TV show that was made/shown by the main broadcaster in a country of millions is notable? Should we start deleting articles on all 'old' TV shows next just because someone hasn't heard of them or seen them? Why stop there - let's get rid of DuMont Television Network while we are at it. Robovski 00:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep clearly meets notability guidelines and precedents. I wouldn't object to a merge, however, but that can be decided on later on the article talk page. Eluchil404 11:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep this is a clearly notable TV show, and its notability is established. The nomination seems to be a mistake. --SunStar Net 11:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
