Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Curse of Mr. Bean

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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of Mr. Bean

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

This article contains no proper information on the episode's production, nothing on its reception when broadcast, nor cites any real references for the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This episode won a BAFTA award. [1]--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With respect, the sections on Awards is hardly essential in the article; it can clearly be placed within the main article, and detail the awards the programme got, whether on a whole or for certain episodes.GUtt01 (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is that this individual episode won a major award, which means that it has achieved significant independent coverage and thus this individual episode passes WP:GNG. Therefore this article should not be deleted.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may have won a major award, but such things can be covered in the main article about the programme, not on an individual episode. GUtt01 (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of correction, it won an EMMY, not a BAFTA.GUtt01 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It won a Bafta as well. I have already provided a reference showing you that.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the notability guideline for TV-series and per long established precedent in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES: "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bean has been widely broadcasted and rebroadcasted internationally for the past 25+ years, according to the video here in "190 territores around the world". We have the parent article at Mr. Bean (not nominated for deletion), we have the episode list at List of Mr. Bean episodes (not nominated for deletion), and then we have 15 individual episode articles (all are up for unbundled deletion). This structure is the accepted standard per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and is fine per WP:SPINOFF with a {{Main}} in Mr. Bean#Episodes per WP:SS. Lack of information on the episode's production is not a policy based reason for deletion, it is not even an article requirement, see WP:TVPRODUCTION. A few words on its reception when broadcast would certainly be nice, but is not mandatory, see WP:TVRECEPTION, and again, its absence is not a policy based reason for deletion, it's a WP:NOTBUILT argument. I agree with nom that most of these 15 articles are poorly sourced, but it is a WP:UNRS argument to be avoided, as WP:ATD-T (policy) specifically suggests tagging for such problems, and because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally there is the question: why take these article to AfD in the first place instead of considering WP:ATD-M (policy) into List of Mr. Bean episodes or a WP:ATD-R solution (policy)? If the titles did not exist and were requested at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with responding to the request by creating them as categorized {{R to TV episode list entry}} redirects. — Sam Sailor 22:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sam Sailor said everything I was thinking. South Nashua (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2017 (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.