Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ultimate Sitcom

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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Sitcom

This is a list from another one of those trivial cheap-to-make "list of the best" TV programs - typically a collection of clips and talking heads of B or C-list celebrities. It has no real authority. Wikipedia shouldn't have an article for every "list of the best" produced out by these tv programs or by popular magazines. Bwithh 02:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. 143 unique ghits, which I believe does not pass the test. Royboy crashfan 02:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per royboycrashfan Wh e re ^(talk) 02:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, notable documentary that aired on Channel 4 and 2; has an IMDb profile [1]. If this gets deleted, then I guess Britain's Best Sitcom should be deleted as well. --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 04:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fraiser over Fawlty Towers, Seinfeld and Blackadder, you gotta be kidding me. Delete this blasphamy. Eivind ^t ^@^c 04:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per above arguments, except the irrelevant one by Eivind. Reyk 06:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. MaNeMeBasat 14:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per TBC. --Billpg 16:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's a limit to eveything. - the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 19:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs some work. Newyorktimescrossword 20:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably seen by huge number of people. Article seems fine to me. -- JJay 21:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. chocolateboy 22:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official ratings, the show was watched by an estimated 1.5million viewers when it was first shown. In comparison, the show "Get Famous, Get Fit, Get Rich: Celebrity Fitness Videos... Exposed" on a rival channel in roughly the same time slot attracted 1.3 million viewers.

TV ratings: January 2 3 January 2006, The Guardian TV overnights: Ken Stott was an instant hit in his new role as Edinburgh detective John Rebus last night, with his first outing attracting 8.4 million viewers to ITV1. Rebus got the better of BBC1's terrestrial movie premiere, Catch Me if You Can, which attracted 6.1 million viewers and a 24% audience share between 8.30pm and 10.45pm. On BBC2 from 9pm, Victoria Coren's new factual show about the origin of popular words and phrases, Balderdash & Piffle, made a promising start, drawing 3.2 million viewers and a 12% audience share over 50 minutes. The former ITV director of programmes, David Liddiment, asked Who Killed the British Sitcom? in a Channel 4 documentary between 9pm and 10.15pm, winning 1 million viewers and a 4% audience share. Then for 100 minutes from 10.15pm on Channel 4, list show The Ultimate Sitcom grabbed 1.5 million viewers and a 10% audience share. Channel Five preyed on viewers' concerns about festive excess from 9pm, with documentary Larger than Life - Eating Themselves to Death consumed by 2.1 million viewers, a 8% audience share. On the same channel between 10pm and 11pm, another topical treat - Get Famous, Get Fit, Get Rich: Celebrity Fitness Videos ... Exposed - drew 1.3 million viewers and a 6% audience share. Critically lauded BBC4 comedy The Thick of It made a steady start on BBC2 last night, attracting 1.6 million viewers and a 7% audience share between 10pm and 10.30pm. Bwithh 22:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks for the ratings that confirmed my feeling that the show was seen by a lot of people. We also have articles on most of those other shows. -- JJay 23:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There may be copyright problems with having the entire list reproduced since I have heard that lists such as this are copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seano1 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Not to mention the potential copyright problems. --Jay(Reply) 23:07, 26 March 2006 (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.