Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Clarkson: Heaven and Hell
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. Shimeru (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeremy Clarkson: Heaven and Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable Jeremy Clarkson DVD. All the rest of his DVDs do not have pages. The actual content of the article is unuseful and its hard to see how it could ever become so. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is notable, having received worldwide coverage in places such as Canada and Malaysia. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unnotable DVD that fails WP:N. Not seeing any "significant coverage" for this DVD at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see notability established. News search for the full title get 4 hits. Yes, 1 is from Malayasia, and one is from Canada, but they're basically notes that the show exists, not a significant discussion of it. I wouldn't be surprised if someone could show notability with a different search, but it hasn't been done yet. Searching "Jeremy Clarkson" "Heaven and Hell" gets 12 hits, which is better, but, again, most are passing/superficial. David V Houston (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I do not see significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2010 (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.