Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Bean (Mr. Bean episode)

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) 11:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bean (Mr. Bean episode)[edit]

(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]

Speedy Keep while I think a legitmate debate can be had about the other installments of the Mr Bean series (although I would incline towards keep), I think there is a very strong argument for retaining as a) It won the Rose d'Or b) It was the first in a highly successful and culturally influential series that spawned an animated spin-off and two films. I agree the article could be improved, but this is not a reason to delete it per Wikipedia:Notability. Dunarc (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While it was influential in spawning a series, the films and animated spin-off were spawned from the programme after its run, not from this episode. In addition, any awards that the programme earned in each episode, can be easily mentioned on the article about Mr. Bean, rather than in separate ones for the episodes. These articles have not been updated at all, and have had notifications at the top of them about needing citations and references to back up the information in them, while also lacking proper information on some aspects - production information is non-existent or contains only a little that focused on filming locations, while containing some information that doesn't relate to the section at all; broadcast does not mean anything, when reception is not having any information, nor anything to back up the number of viewers for the original transmission. In short, I hardly believe a Speedy Keep is justified. GUtt01 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has not stated a valid deletion rationale. The fact that it may be missing production information and references does not mean it should be deleted as AFD is not clean up. Such information can be found here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am sorry Pawnkingthree, but the link you provided does not provide such information; it only provides the plot summary, the broadcast info, the production team and the guest cast, but nothing else.GUtt01 (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It answers one of your complaints, lack of references. I am still not sure why you nominated all of the episodes for deletion. If you had concerns that there is not enough information for standalone episode articles you could have discussed it on the List of Mr Bean episodes talk page or even redirected them there. In my view there are enough sources out there to satisfy WP:GNG as it is an extremely well known programmes and many of its sketches and episodes have received independent coverage, for example this from the Telegraph and this from the Metro. It makes more sense to discuss the sketches in the context of their original episodes. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that upon examination of the links, I can't see how these could be used. They discuss the sketches, and not the episodes themselves. The main issue is that these articles are not well built as they could be. The other factor is the programme only had fifteen episodes. If it had around twenty or more, I could justify keeping them, and merely putting forward on the List of Mr. Bean Episodes article the need for wikipedians to work to improve them. I can't really see any justification for separate articles on each episode; for the films, I do, because they had a major storyline to them of exceptional length, and certainly provided information that covered their production, reception to critics and audiences, and so forth.GUtt01 (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personal assertions such as I can't really see any justification for separate articles on each episode are not terribly interesting, it's again an argument to be avoided, see WP:BELONG. Arguments at AfD should be founded in policy, guidelines, and precedent determined by the community. — Sam Sailor 22:40, 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 22:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:04, 12 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.