Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Activity (U.S. TV series)
Appearance
- 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. ]
No Activity (U.S. TV series)
No references. Does not satisfy
television notability. Too little information to be encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
]
- Keep: Subject has significant coverage per [1] [2] KGirl (Wanna chat?) 17:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect to chatter) 21:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)]
- Redirect to No Activity#American adaptation, the Australian original on which the U.S. version is based, where it already has a section -- Whats new?(talk) 22:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
- Redirect –Since no enough content for standalone page now, and it already has section in No Activity#American adaptation –Ammarpad (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. There is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, many reviews online. Should be updated, not deleted. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)]
- ]
- No. I'm not saying there must be/probably are sources, I'm saying there are many sources. A quick Google search illustrates enough significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)]
- No. I'm not saying there must be/probably are sources, I'm saying there are many sources. A quick Google search illustrates enough significant coverage in reliable sources. --
- ]
- Keep. There has been a considerable amount of coverage among various reputable sources. It needs time to continue to be updated. Should not be deleted. BoogerD (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
- ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist]
- Keep. Has been greatly improved and sourced since submission here. — Wyliepedia 09:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as it now has references to significant content in reliable sources such as The Guardian and The Los Angeles Times, passses WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)]
- 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.