Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Best of Times (TV pilot)

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. While the previous discussion was closed as delete, this discussion has garnered much broader discussion, and the consensus is clear. –Darkwind (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Times (TV pilot)

[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)

I'm not sure what is going on here, but this exact subject was previously taken to AfD where the result was delete. This version is a completely unsoured article, about a TV pilot that was aired just once, and it likely does not pass WP:GNG – a look in Newspapers.com suggests there may have been a review or two of this at the time, but this is likely not enough coverage to justify a standalone article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Show was on a national channel and received coverage at the time, even if it isn't readily available in the age of the internet. I did find one review from The New York Times, which I added to the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Donaldd23: Did you look at all at the previous AfD? – One or even two reviews is not enough to meet WP:GNG. The benchmark is "significant coverage" not "any coverage". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Under WP:GNG, Significant coverage says "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." It does not specify the number of sources required. The New York Times article is a full review of the show...not a trivial mention. It also passes the Reliable and independent of the subject clauses of WP:GNG. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, since I left my "keep" vote, another editor added 2 more reliable sources to the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTV and GNG. I added some more newspaper stories as references, including a lengthy piece in the San Francisco Examiner that talks about how the original intentions for the show were thwarted by network demands at CBS. NTV says that "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)." This was on a national channel, and received coverage. The fact that the show was not well-reviewed and did not do well in the ratings does not affect its notability. Failures can be notable too. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like the last nom, I stand by my original rationale; we usually don't give coverage or articles to television pilots that aired once and did nothing but fill a dismal summer timeslot in the days before reality television. The only reason this got newspaper coverage, in turn, was to fill space on a newspaper's television page so a few TV critics could expand on why this show didn't go to series and that viewers should find something else to do that August night; yes, it may have had 'significant coverage', but it was localized to one week with nothing else 'new' on, and then forgotten by all outside of Bill Bixby career completionists. We remember Square Pegs because it was good but wasn't popular in the mainstream; we don't remember this series because it aired once to a disinterested public. Nate • (chatter) 20:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep – even 3 articles (over just two days) doesn't qualify "significant" coverage. In general, I agree with you – even aired "one-off" pilots aren't generally notable enough for articles (and a careful reading of WP:TVSHOW really doesn't imply that they are). If one of the two writers had their own article, I would have advocated "merging" this content to that article. But even this pilot's writers aren't notable, and there's no point in merging any of this to Bill Bixby. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds like a version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, namely WP:THEYDIDNTLIKEIT. "We remember Square Pegs because it was good... we don't remember this series because it aired to a disinterested public." A subject doesn't have to be successful in its field to be notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Toughpigs: This looks like you mean to reply to Nate/Mrschimpf, not to me... And, FWIW, that's not what Nate is saying – what Nate is saying, basically, is the fact that this show was only talked about the day it aired and then was promptly forgotten about demonstrates that its not notable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Obviously the show was not "forgotten" if someone created an article for it. And, if something that only aired once was the criteria, then there would be a lot of TV shows that lasted only 1 season and never went into syndication that would need to be removed from Wikipedia. And that is not the case. This airing has 3 independent reliable reviews support its notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        "Obviously the show was not "forgotten" if someone created an article for it." That's pretty much the definition of WP:CIRCULAR. But, no – even a show that lasts one season will garner more coverage than a single TV pilot will, because there will be follow-up articles on the show entering production, etc. In general, what needs to be shown for both WP:TV and WP:FILM is significant coverage that covers all aspects of the project – production (e.g. filming and casting) and reception (e.g. critical response). Even three sources does not really demonstrate this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is three independent reviews that show notability for gng, as they are not just statements but full reviews. The comment that The only reason this got newspaper coverage, in turn, was to fill space on a newspaper's television page is one of the daftest arguments I have ever heard! That would mean all TV reviews are rubbish and could not be used as notability, which would then mean most TV programs would not be on wikipedia. I also argue the case for WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Stating that television critics are happy to review something in their deadest periods in the past (August was a dead zone for television until cable got traction) is stating the truth, not daft. At that point, there were only three networks and syndication, and they could review everything, including do-nothing pilots to examine why the network rejected it; this analysis helped out television executives in turn, to confirm their choice was right and examine what would work the next season. We don't need to preserve every single thing that went across a television screen, and this was completely forgotten after that evening in 1983 outside a few. Nate • (chatter) 05:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think that there is any policy that says that we determine notability based on our personal theories of what journalists and television executives used to care about in late summer. "This was completely forgotten" is a WP:ITSNOTIMPORTANT argument. — Toughpigs (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - What does determine notability is determining the standard of "significant coverage", and one day of coverage isn't "significant" (enough). That's Nate's point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Your statement of "one day of coverage isn't significant" is ludicrous. How many Made for TV films have articles and the film was only shown once? Those films usually only have "one day of coverage" too. Should they be eliminated? How about films released direct to video? They are reviewed when released and then never mentioned again, thereby qualifying for your "one day of coverage". Should they be eliminated? No. "One day of coverage" isn't mentioned anywhere. The number of significant reviews qualifies something for notability...and this TV pilot meets that coverage. This is definitely a prime example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Got it in one: in fact, most TV movies, esp. ones broadcast in the last 20 years, aren't notable enough for standalone articles. These days, TV movies get very little-to-no secondary coverage. --IJBall (contribs • talk)
        Comment It had three reviews the one week it aired in August 1983. Going by this article and overall sourcing, its WP:N expired the moment the credits rolled in Hawaii upon its last airing time-zone-wise because it wasn't talked about any further from that point on, and outside Hallie Todd, none of the actors had further success or 'hey remember this?' clip show WP:N based on this pilot (and for Todd it's likely to be in spite of this pilot as she quickly found one of her defining roles a few months later); Brad Pitt wasn't on this show giving it later notoriety for his mere presence. This show does not need an article. Nate • (chatter) 00:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment None of the actors had further success? Alex Rocco was in it, he won an Emmy Award 7 years after this. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTV Lightburst (talk) 16:49, 9 July 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.