Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bottersnikes and Gumbles (TV series)

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 speedy keep. per WP:SNOW. All relevant Notability guidelines met including WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW. The nomination for a Logie Award makes it unlikely that a full discussion would come to any other conclusion. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bottersnikes and Gumbles (TV series)[edit]

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

~~Non notable 1 ref film~~ fails NFILM L3X1 (distant write) 19:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Item is a television series and there are three sources in the article, not just one (please use plain English for your deletion rationales, L3X1, it isn't up to discussors to decode them). Known series airing on two national networks along with a Netflix release; WP:N is more than met. Nate • (chatter) 20:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the illegible rationale. Can you show how it meets NFILM? If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources It hasn't, AWN and Screen Australia are like IMDB, they write about everything, and don't count as notablity sources. I also don't see it passing WP:NFO L3X1 (distant write) 20:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Again this isn't a film. It can't meet NFILM. Please re-read the notability guidelines. Nate • (chatter) 21:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market OK, it's on 2 networks, which is called turning your head sideways and squinting, but thats my opnion which is why I AfDd this article. And on BeIN Series (MENA) you could of stated that other BeIN offshoots had been voted "Keep" on. And Shawn's right, rather than assume the nom. has forgotten the N guidelines, cite the WP you believe something slots under, rather than laying down broad statements "N is more than met". L3X1 (distant write) 23:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is on you to know what policies you're citing and why you'd like the article deleted before you bring a nomination. It is becoming exhausting to see noms which are malformed, vague and which require a discussor to do their own homework to decide a nomination's fate because the nominator didn't follow WP:BEFORE. I have other things to do and I don't have time to point out policies which you should already know when you create the nom. Also, CBBC is one of the largest children's broadcasters in the world and 7TWO broadcasts throughout Australia. WP:N is clinched with the show's over-the-air coverage. Nate • (chatter) 00:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the nominator's benefit, WP:TVSHOW would be the guideline in this case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it pretty much steers us back to GNG, from what I can see.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal Thanks, I had aleady gotten to it, but was unable to respond earlier. L3X1 (distant write) 23:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the fact it has been nominated for a Logie Award, is being aired in Australia, the UK and the US, pretty well establishes its notability. Dan arndt (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a review by The Independent. I dispute the allegation that Screen Australia is "like IMDB" or "don't count as notability sources". The article passes WP:TVSHOW with its appearance on at least one national TV network (it actually is on two such networks + netflix). The article has RS supporting the subject's notability. It also passes WP:GNG with substantial coverage in independent reliable sources.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from the refs and the context it is notable and adequately covered JarrahTree 00:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - rather a speedy keep per WP:SNOW. WP:TVSHOW states 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), or on a cable television network with a national audience. This show airs in more than three nations, the UK and Australia, as well as on Netflix for North America. Add the fact that it has been covered in multiple reliable sources, and that it was nominated for a Logie Award, I don't see any reasonable argument for this to not be kept. — Yash^talk stalk 16:47, 17 March 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.