Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New Andy Griffith Show

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The result was Nom Withdrawn. (non-admin closure). –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The New Andy Griffith Show[edit]

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

Notability is questionable and relies on a single source. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if not independently notable, an alternative to deletion (WP:ATD) is to merge content to The Andy Griffith Show. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep, for heaven's sake It gets a thousand GBook hits; the fact that the article is at present based upon a single source is of no consequence. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was a separate network TV series, not a part of The Andy Griffith Show. It received substantial news coverage at the time (for example, a Google search for <"New Andy Griffith Show" site:news.google.com> yields results from the limited Google News archive such as [1][2][3][4][5]), and it is covered in multiple book sources, two of which are already cited in the article. WP:OUTCOMES#Broadcast media and WP:TVSERIES note that national network TV series are normally notable, and there's no reason this one would not be. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Everybody else already made my points but I'd add that a lack of sources is a reason to improve the article, be bold, and add more sources, not in and of itself a reason to delete. Topic is clearly notable.Christopher Lotito (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I hereby withdraw this nomination as it has been proven notable. I did do google searches before proposing this. But, I must have been using weird settings. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2014 (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.