Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of guests on The Alan Titchmarsh 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 delete. Sandstein 18:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of guests on The Alan Titchmarsh Show[edit]

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

The list is trivial. Koala15 (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but restructure to List of The Alan Titchmarsh Show episodes like other talk shows. This was a show that ran for seven seasons in the UK (equivalent of 150 US TV years). —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an encyclopaedic list. Szzuk (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another daily talk show guest list with zero sources and no hope of finding any outside of the probably small Allan Titchmarsh Show obsessionist community. If you're in the media in Britain/ITV regular they've been on this show; no need for a list about this. Nate • (chatter) 17:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE, no basis for the list is provided in the lead, fails WP:Stand alone lists. --Bejnar (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restructure per Wikimandia. Artw (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikimandia is —Мандичка

@Artw: On what Wikipedia guideline or policy is your recommendation based? Please see: WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --Bejnar (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bejnar: The guideline is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television. This list is in the wrong format. It should be restructured to follow the same format as other articles (see Category:Lists of variety television series episodes). —Мандичка^YO 😜 17:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is we don't keep articles in the hope someone will change them. They are kept or deleted based upon what they are right now, not what they could be. Szzuk (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. - An avenue for page improvement has been suggested, I believe it is worth pursuing. Artw (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both keep votes in this afd effectively say this page isn't notable but a similar one with a different name using similar content would be. The correct procedure is userfy content, delete this page and recreate the new article when it is encyclopedic. Szzuk (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is we don't keep articles in the hope someone will change them. That is categorically untrue. The policy is WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. We don't delete articles because they're not good enough yet. —Мандичка^YO 😜 01:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will be clearer and add the relevant words in bold we don't keep articles in the hope someone will change them and make them notable. Szzuk (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hapoens all the time, and that's where "2nd nomination, users said they'd improve it but actually they didn't." comes in to play, should the article fail to improve. There's no rush here, and I'm not sure what emergency you think you are addressing. Artw (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the heart of every afd discussion is the notability of the subject. There is nothing in this article that demonstrates notability. Szzuk (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2015 (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.