Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man Without a Gun
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The result was nomination withdrawn. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Man Without a Gun
Contested prod. Television show that was on-air for two seasons. There are a couple of sources, but they do not seem to come up to the standard of WP:RS. No third-party coverage (that I could find) in reliable sources, does not meet WP:NOTE, and (although only a proposal) WP:FICTION. Is the lack of sources a question of age (i.e., recentism) or is it truly a non-notable show? Pastordavid (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Nom Withdrawn. It seems that consensus is that nationally braodcast shows are inherently notable. I'm happy for the next admin who strolls along to speedy close this as keep, since there are no delete !votes. Pastordavid (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Sorry to contradict you, but this program ran for two full seasons on U.S. television, was produced by and syndicated through a major studio (20th Century Fox), and starred a well-known actor of the era (Rex Reason, best known today for the cult film This Island Earth). For online references, it is cited by three different entertainment-related sources which lists the episodes and unusual concept of non-violent solutions to rowdy behavior. If the show is not recalled today, it is due to the fact that TV westerns fell out of favor with American audiences about three decades ago (when I last checked, only the two longest-running series, Gunsmoke and Bonanza, are still being rerun on U.S. TV). Ecoleetage (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Nationally broadcast tv shows are considered notable by their nature, and sources show demonstrate that this is not a hoax. Because of its age, this is one to sit back and let it grow slowly. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Not trying to be argumentitive, but such a criteria of inherent notability for nationally broadcast tv shows is not found anywhere in the notability guidelines or proposals, nor is it found in the common deletion debate outcomes. Can you show me where such shows are exempt from the general notability guideline of having significant coverage in reliable sources? (And the article has been tagged as of questionable notability for 1 year with no improvement, how slowly are we talking?) Pastordavid (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Response - Not to be dense, but how is it that a show with a two-season run on national television, a well-known star and a top Hollywood studio as its producer not be considered as notable? On Wikipedia, I've found entire articles related to single episodes of Family Guy -- how is it that one episode is considered notable but an entire two-season television series is not? (In the 1950s and 1960s, two seasons was considered successful for U.S. TV shows.) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Yes, there is other stuff that is questionable. My reason for questioning the notability - as outlined above - is the lack of reliable third party coverage - which is the standard of notability. Pastordavid (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- It is a fair enough concern that, as a notability criterion, it's not very well documented. I have seen my argument used enough in AfDs that I've started using it myself, without having a handy shortcut. Adding it to common outcomes would be a very good idea. As an indicator (if not direct confirmation) that it is true, I note that WP:BK defines any work that has been adapted as a nationally broadcast tv show is de facto notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Response - Not to be dense, but how is it that a show with a two-season run on national television, a well-known star and a top Hollywood studio as its producer not be considered as notable? On Wikipedia, I've found entire articles related to single episodes of Family Guy -- how is it that one episode is considered notable but an entire two-season television series is not? (In the 1950s and 1960s, two seasons was considered successful for U.S. TV shows.) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Not trying to be argumentitive, but such a criteria of inherent notability for nationally broadcast tv shows is not found anywhere in the notability guidelines or proposals, nor is it found in the common deletion debate outcomes. Can you show me where such shows are exempt from the general notability guideline of having significant coverage in reliable sources? (And the article has been tagged as of questionable notability for 1 year with no improvement, how slowly are we talking?) Pastordavid (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Major-network TV series that lasted multiple season and had a notable star. Pretty clearly worthy of an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep There's some information about the show in these sources. Zagalejo^^^ 17:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:NOTE is only a guideline and not sufficient to delete, the RS concern seems to have been addressed, I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be reliable sources for this. However you might have to check your local library rather than the internet. MrPrada (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Television series broadcast nationally and produced by either a major network or a major studio, or both, are inherently notable, no matter how long they ran. The fact this ran for two seasons affirms its notabily even more. This isn't a case of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as this is based upon firmly established precedent and execution of WP's notability policy. It took me 10 seconds to find a listing for this show in one of my numerous TV series encyclopedia books, so I can confirm it's not a hoax, which is the primary reason for the whole RS thing. 23skidoo (talk) 18:57, 1 May 2008 (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.
