Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerbert (TV series)

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 speedy keep. Nomination Withdrawn per WP:KEEP#1 (non-admin closure) Enfcer (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerbert (TV series)

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

Appears to fail the WP:GNG, as well as any relevant parts of WP:FILM. Google fails to turn up any relevant results other than youtube videos and the site's own website or other unrelated results. nn123645 (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Nomination Withdrawn, obviously with the sources at the newspaper archive and it running on PBS this is notable. I'll leave the closing to someone else. --nn123645 (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Program aired on several national cable networks and PBS member stations for a long run and continues to air on religious networks today. Notability is sealed on that alone, and as usual, Christian children's series always need a lower threshold of notability than other children's programming due to a smaller audience pool. Nate • (chatter) 04:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the first sentence of Mrschimpf's recommendation. I note that this article has been around for years, but apparently was recently vandalized. However, I disagree with the idea that Christian children's series should be subjected to lower notability criteria than other television series. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only said the lower criteria because there has been an odd bias among television series articles to nominate Christian kid's series for AfD that I've noticed because the nominators sometimes don't bother to go beyond the first page of Google results or use Boolean terms to dig deeper for notability, while they just let secular series float by even if the writing is a fannish unsourced mess. Nate • (chatter) 06:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Even on the second and third page of google search results (I have my settings set to 100 results per page, so that would be the equivlant to pages 1-30 on the default of 10) there is little other than blogs and similarly unreliable sources. Maybe you can find more stuff than I can but I'm just not finding stuff on the web. That of course doesn't mean that sources don't exist, but still notable things will generally have third party reliable sources covering them in most forms of media, including the web. As far as the secular series floating by thing that sounds to me like a perfect case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --nn123645 (talk) 00:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In that it was a puppet show for toddlers, the persons who recall it are parents (and perhaps older siblings) of toddlers in the late 80s and early 90s. However, it ran for several years nationally on cable TV and received the requisite coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources [1]and [2]. I was surprised to learn that it had been picked up by PBS tations as well, yet apparently it did [3]. Largely forgotten, but it was notable in its time. Mandsford 23:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I couldn't find any mention of this series in McNeil's Total Television, but a quick search of Newspaper Archive pulled up over 900 newspaper articles. Clearly notable in its day. The first article I clicked on mentioned that the producer, David Frayss, had previously won an Emmy, so I added that detail to the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:06, 15 March 2011 (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.