Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our Private World

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our Private World

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

This article could not establish notability for the series itself, despite the series's role as the spin-off of As the World Turns. Also, it has never added references for four years since the maintenance tag. Any notable interest, such as the predecessor and the network CBS, would not help the article stand on its own. The entry is poorly written and has barely improved for lifetime. Optionally, there must be real-world perspectives to help the article stay strong. Even any amount of external links is insufficient to keep an article strong and healthy. Don't persuade me to vote for merge to As the World Turns; I will vote some other time. —Gh87 (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC) other than soap fansites, there has not been one single reference of this show in and out of that article. The fact that the article has not improved for years influnces me to think: this article's subject has been less popular now than it had been then. It may be likely to merge to As the World Turns; this show has been mentioned there already, so I'm not certain if redirect or merge is necessary. I have dealt with unreasonable re-creations not well enough, but I don't want to revert edits because that would waste more data energy and logs. Preserving history may be a noble thing; too bad I go for deletion to erase history to prevent vandalism. --Gh87 (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no valid deletion rationale provided, to the extent I can follow any rationale. The criticism appears to be that the article currently lacks references, which is not a reason for deletion; and that no one has worked on it for a long time, which per WP:NOEFFORT is also not considered a valid reason for deletion. It's a television series that was broadcast by a major TV network. As noted in WP:OUTCOMES, "television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I see no reason to change that. If Gh87 doesn't want to "waste more data energy and logs," then he should not start AFDs in this manner. postdlf (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I must fully agree with User:Postdlf, no reason to delete other than lack of citations, meets all other requirements, I found two brief but promising links[1] [2], not sure if it qualifies but at least it is some effort towards improving the article. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will have added them NOT as references BUT as "External links". That still won't suffice; even some "improving" articles during AfD may be deleted under AfD. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2011 (UTC)~~ I won't use TV Guide or IMDB as references for any circumstances other than self-references, such as notable episodes from IMDB per Star Trek: The Original Series. --Gh87 (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Postdlf. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:20, 22 October 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.