Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essex Wives

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:35, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essex Wives[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No evidence this TV documentary meets WP:NMEDIA/GNG. Prod declined with a suggestion of merging, but no target was specified. Further, the current two sentence substub is unreferenced, so there is no referenced content to merge (WP:V). PS. References have been added since the AfD started, through I don't think either of the two present as of the moment I am updating this comment can be called in-depth. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge WP:POINT-nomination after a faulty WP:BEFORE or even faulty reading of the article. The article clearly states that it is a program broadcasted by ITV (TV network), so it can be merged with that. The Banner talk 12:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles on TV stations don't usually contain any detail, or even list, such minor programming. Merging this there would look odd. Also, as I said, there is no referenced content to merge. The only WP:POINT here is your stalking of my prods and deprodding everything with bogus rationale. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not stalking your PRODs, I have your PROD-log on my watchlist, due to serious concerns about your ability to PROD correctly. You are missing too many merge-options but opting for destruction instead. That is, as a PROD fails, in most cases you come with a WP:POINTy AfD... The Banner talk 14:27, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator mass prods articles and causes havoc at en.wiki. There may be a case for merger here but please use "merge into" to start such a procedure. Not prod then AfD! DO NOT change this into the umpteenth argument with every WP contributor who disagrees with a suggested deletion. ANY bludgeoninig below my opinion is not appreciated! See example above. gidonb (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal attacks don't make for a very convincing keep arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well then stop bludgeoning behind the opinion of every person who disagrees with you! gidonb (talk) 08:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep violating WP:NPA, WP:ANI is not far. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must have a lot of time. Enjoy! gidonb (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Kvng that the article meets WP:NTV. This nomination is a clear WP:BEFORE failure. As usual, I see arguments with each and every participant. This is not how AfDs should work. Please nominate more carefully, do not argue with everyone, or threaten those who are willing to share their opinion. WP is a group effort and everyone's opinion is appreciated! gidonb (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ping User:YorkshireLad: this is the last, fourth, of my current deletions form this topic. Do you think this one can be saved? Some refs have been found already, but they don't seem to be in-depth, and I am not sure how reliable is the second. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So, the first citation isn't actually a source for the claimed fact at all. (That article uses the term "Golden Triangle" to refer to those towns, but nowhere says that the term came from the show.) The second citation is from what I'd consider a reliable source—it's a local newspaper in Reading, Berkshire. There do seem to be a number of TV reviews about the show in reliable sources, but also a lot of stuff that's about Jodie Marsh, linking back to her time on the show. I'd therefore lean towards merging with Jodie Marsh. As in the comments I've made on related ITV programmes, merging with ITV (TV network) doesn't make sense to me. YorkshireLad (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Jodie Marsh, per comment above.YorkshireLad (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Weak keep per WP:NTV, though reliable sources for this specific programme do seem a little thin on the ground. YorkshireLad (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the sources from this article to JM, since there actuall was an outstanding citation request for her appearance in Essex Wives. I am not sure if there is anything else to merge, through it's possible her bio can be expanded a little with those refs. That's about the most value I think we can extract from this... PS. The show is also mentioned with an outsanding cite request in article on Buckhurst Hill, Chigwell (same clame as YorkshireLad notes is hard to verify, I think, so it might need removing) and Loughton. That actually had two references but one mentions the show in passing and the other is rotted, so not much of help to us.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Aired on ITV (TV network) so meets WP:NTV ~Kvng (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please quote the relevant content from NMEDIA. I see "In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. ". And those reliable sources with in-depth coverage seem to be missing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NTV. I think that Piotrus is misreading the policy, which says: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone." The fact that reliable sources trump geographic range is meant to be a support for keeping notable local shows with good coverage. The first sentence still says that shows with a national audience are generally considered notable. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Toughpigs: The UK doesn't really have a system of local media markets (at least, not any more); with the exception of local news broadcasts, every programme that airs in England airs throughout England, and in most cases in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland too. Does this mean that essentially all British TV programmes are notable, or am I misunderstanding? YorkshireLad (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - YorkshireLad: That's how I understand that policy, yes. Is there a reason why they shouldn't be? -- Toughpigs (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Toughpigs: perhaps not. I was about to make an argument (having just looked at tonight's TV listings) that programmes like Eating With My Ex and Millionaire Age Gap Love were unlikely to have received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG; they certainly don't currently have articles. But in fact both of those have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and it seems reasonable that someone could make and article (perhaps only a stub, but still) about either. YorkshireLad (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2020 (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.