Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Channel Nine Show

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 merge to The Aunty Jack Show. After the merge, redirect for the reasons outlined by SpinningSpark -- RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Channel Nine Show

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

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

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

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

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

Followup to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aunty Jack's Travelling Show: these are five more episodes of the same series which were created after that discussion was initiated, but did not get caught or bundled into the original batch in time. But they're still subject to the same problems as the first set: they offer no substance or sourcing to demonstrate the standalone notability of each episode, and are referenced entirely to episode guides and IMDb, rather than reliable source media coverage about the episodes. As always, every individual episode of a TV series is not granted an automatic presumption of standalone notability as a separate topic -- you need to show quite a lot more real-world context about the episode to get it over the bar, not just a basic plot summary. Many TV programs only have one or two episodes that actually warrant standalone articles separately from the series as a whole, and many more than that have none. What's required to get an episode over the bar in its own right is reliable source coverage that's specifically about that episode itself -- but none is being shown for any of these. Bearcat (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all of them - I didn't see the first AfD; sorry. The Aunty Jack Show was as notable in Australia, in its day, as Seinfeld or The Simpsons. We have articles on every episode of those two shows. Aunty Jack should not be given less treatment because it is Australian, or was on TV before the Internet age. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of television shows do not have separate articles about each individual episode. What determines whether that gets to happen or not is whether enough reliable sources cover the episode in enough depth to give it context for why a separate article is needed — mere plot summaries and cast lists simply do not cut it. The Puppy Episode of Ellen, for example, is the only episode of its entire series that actually has (or ever will have) its own standalone article — and it qualified for one not because it existed, but because it's been extensively analyzed by reliable sources as one of the most overarchingly important moments in the entire history of LGBT representation in media. The standard that a television episode has to meet to qualify for a separate article is "noteworthy and substantive context", not "IMDb verifies that it existed". Yes, there are a few shows (Seinfeld and The Simpsons are two examples; Star Trek is another one) that have been so extensively written about by reliable sources that almost every episode can actually support a standalone article — but that's not a treatment that any show automatically gets just because of one user's subjective assertions of importance, it's a treatment that reliable source coverage about the episodes has to be there to support. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Aunty Jack Show then delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merge and redirect, the substantive content of all these articles is just a couple of sentences, so they can easily be accomadated in the main article. I don't get why User:Dennis Brown is calling for delete after merge. First of all, the history needs retaining for attribution reasons after a merge, and secondly redirects are cheap and these will help anyone searching on an episode title to find the right place. SpinningSpark 12:09, 11 June 2017 (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.