Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santo, Sam and Ed's Cup Fever!

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santo, Sam and Ed's Cup Fever!

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

Contested PROD. This article has two references, neither of which establish any form of notability. It was a temporary TV show for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, and this article should be just as temporary. – Pee Jay 00:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 00:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This show might have had a limited run but it was the precursor for the regular series Santo, Sam and Ed’s Sports Fever!. There are many TV series which last one season or have a limited number of episodes/shows which have their own article. This show is no different. J Bar (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But where are the sources to show its actual notability? As an example of a show that only ran for one season, Firefly has loads; this one does not. – Pee Jay 07:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Santo, Sam and Ed’s Sports Fever!, a parent article. GiantSnowman 19:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's the other way round. "Sports Fever!" is a spinoff of "Cup Fever!". Jenks24 (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From WP:TVSERIES: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations. It aired nationally in Australia, and I've added an ref from a major newspaper that covers it in depth. The-Pope (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:TVSERIES and The-Pope. Jenks24 (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article passes WP:TVSERIES. The article could have some more sources though. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I second a lot of the comments made so far. Some TV series have a wikipedia article for each episode, so there is no need to delete an article that covers a whole TV series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Religious Burp (talk • contribs) 23:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Also of note is that it's a project by Working Dog, who are a fairly notable group in Australia. So basically one person who hasn't heard of the show is suggesting the show isn't notable and should be delated while many more are saying it is definitely worth keeping. So why is it that this article is still up for deletion???? Religious Burp (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because now that the discussion has started, it has to run its course. Furthermore, if an article is undersourced, how is anyone in Australia supposed to know how notable the programme is, let alone someone halfway across the globe? This is why we have requirements that articles be properly sourced (and I note there are still far too few sources to determine notability); after all, WP:TVSERIES is only a general guideline; although it may pass WP:TVSERIES, just because a programme has been aired nationally does not mean that it is guaranteed to be notable. – Pee Jay 15:25, 9 July 2012 (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.