Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aunty Jack's Travelling 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 Keep Aunty Jack Introduces Colour as notable, delete all the rest, per arguments below. If anyone wants any of the deleted content to merge in, let me know and I will provide it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aunty Jack's Travelling Show[edit]

(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)

(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)

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

Set of spinoff articles about individual episodes of a television series, none of which contains any real reliable sourcing, or even much actual substance, to demonstrate that they're individually notable as separate topics from the series as a whole. In each case, the article just consists of a brief plot summary followed by pro forma directory sections for the cast list and technical details, resulting in something that would belong on a fansite rather than in an encyclopedia — and right across the board the referencing is to sources that cannot confer notability, such as fansites, IMDb, YouTube or DailyMotion video clips and amateur film review blogs. For an individual television episode to qualify for a standalone article, however, we require reliably sourced real world context for what makes the episode significant (think Star Trek's "The Trouble with Tribbles", The West Wing's "Two Cathedrals", Ellen's "The Puppy Episode", that sort of thing.) The vast majority of episodes of the vast majority of television series simply aren't in that rarefied tier, and just get listed in episode lists rather than being spun off as standalone articles — and there's no evidence being shown that any of these episodes warrant being singled out for special treatment. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 18:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tenuous keep for the "Introduces Colour" episode, Weakish delete for the rest. The significance of that particular episode is - as far as I'm aware, and I can certainly try to find sources for it - that it was both the first thing broadcast in colour on the ABC here in Australia as well as being broadcast in colour "earlier than the other channels were meant to" (this is my early-ish in the morning recollection of something I was told a few years ago, obviously sources are required before anyone says anything). I would suggest that that might give that episode a level of notability that the other individual eps mightn't have. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the "Colour" episode's links are not solely to "fansites" and the like, but to what look to me to be quite sober histories of television in Australia with footnotes of their own. Yes, there are two IMDB citations, but two of the others go to the National Film and Sound Archive in Australia, which speaks to notability right there. The other episodes seem on a very quick skim to have "weaker" sources, but I don't think this is quite the one-size-fits-all that it might otherwise seem. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sex (The Aunty Jack Show), Family (The Aunty Jack Show), and The Aunty Jack Horror Show should likely also fall under the umbrella of this AfD. Ajpolino (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, they definitely should. Just for the record, though, they're not articles that I missed at the time, but articles that weren't even created until after this discussion was launched. I'm adding them to the page for consideration, however. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aunty Jack Introduces Colour as notable. I've added a few more references to the article to demonstrate its notability. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep colour episode, delete the rest, probably though salvage the detail content into a table in the main article. Such detail content of cast by episode, broadcast time and durations, producer/s, etc., has been done this way in other series articles quite successfully. Aoziwe (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Aunty Jack Introduces Colour as passing GNG, Delete the rest. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we nominate Template:AuntyJackEps at MdD? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object if you did, especially considering the way this AfD is going. Normally, I'd probably suggest waiting until we're sure things are being deleted. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep colour episode - at least. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:27, 28 May 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.