This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
3rd party sources - Most of the references are from the BBC or RedDwarf.co.uk (the official site).
Notability - The article doesn't establish notability and lacks 3rd party sources.
Insufficient context - I think this edit should help [1] (it clarifies that RD is a sci-fi sitcom).
Unencyclopedic
I did not tag the article, I'm clarifying what I think needs to be done. --Mrwojo (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts in contributing to this article, Mrwojo. But as you've probably discovered yourself, 3rd party sources on this episode are hard to find, if they exist at all. And because of this the article will never gain notability.
While I agree with the Tag, it still seems strange that a non-current British television series receives so much attention yet there are so many more articles deserving of the same treatment, e.g. There must be about 400 plus Simpsons articles with the majority of them failing the exact same Tag issues. --Nreive (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the series itself is notable, and every other episode in the series is listed, it would be stupid to delete this one article as 'non-notable'. Applying common sense -- Tags removed. EdJogg (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]