Talk:Jane Eyre (1973 TV series)

Cruft?
Necrothesp, you raise an interesting point. This article is cruft because it is in no way notable. Other bands have articles; not all bands do. Other authors have articles; not all authors do; etc. You have provided no affirmative reason for keeping this article. IronDuke 01:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that no TV series is notable? You'd have to delete a hell of a lot of articles. And are films any more notable than TV series? Let's delete all the articles on films too! Or are you only saying this series is non-notable? In that case, why particularly? Because you've never heard of it? Because it was made thirty years ago? Because it predates Google and therefore probably doesn't produce many hits? Have a look at Jane Eyre (disambiguation). Why is this any less notable than the other TV and film versions there that have articles already? -- Necrothesp 12:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If there were any more strawmen in your post above, it would constitute a fire hazard.


 * Are you saying that no TV series is notable?
 * Hmmm… interesting…keep rereading my post, though and not seeing where I said that. But to answer your question: no.
 * You'd have to delete a hell of a lot of articles.
 * I don’t know about “a hell of a lot”, but plenty, sure.
 * And are films any more notable than TV series?
 * Depends.
 * Let's delete all the articles on films too!
 * Sigh. Yes, do let’s. (sarcasm)
 * Or are you only saying this series is non-notable?
 * Careful… you’re dangerously close to the point I was actually making.
 * In that case, why particularly?
 * Because no one seems to note it.
 * Because you've never heard of it?
 * Sigh.
 * Because it was made thirty years ago?
 * Yes, that’s right. Down with all things on Wikipedia that were made thirty years ago.
 * Because it predates Google and therefore probably doesn't produce many hits?
 * Again, I urge caution. Dangerously close to an actual argument. Answer: no.
 * Have a look at Jane Eyre (disambiguation).
 * Done.
 * Why is this any less notable than the other TV and film versions there that have articles already?
 * When did I say it was? IronDuke  16:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So, in other words, after all that sarcasm and unnecessary quoting of what I wrote, you've still not said why you don't think it's notable. The only attempt at answering this point was "because no one seems to note it". What does that mean? Where have you looked? It has a full entry on the IMDb. It is unlikely to be referenced that much on other websites because of its age. Which other sources which should mention it and don't have you checked? -- Necrothesp 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Which sources have I checked? Why, have you never heard of The Big Book of Wikipedia Non-notability? It's chock full o' stuff we're supposed to leave out of WP. How on earth am I to prove a negative here? There may be some mention of its significance somewhere (presumably offline). I am under no obligation to spend hours in a library in a (probably fruitless) quest to show that this show somehow mattered, then or at any time. If you can point to any WP:RS (and no, IMDB does not confer notability, not at all, and I think you already know this), I will cheerfully include that source. IronDuke  17:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, so your nomination was based on the famous "I've never heard of it" principle. Not enough for a deletion, I'm afraid. I'm really not sure why you've nominated this series and not the thousands more that grace Wikipedia. It was a series that aired on a major TV channel, that starred well-known actors, and that was probably watched by a large percentage of Britain's population. I really don't see why it's not notable. It's every bit as notable as the TV series on Wikipedia that not only have their own articles, but a separate article for every episode. It's just a bit older and thus has less internet coverage. -- Necrothesp 17:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your misreading of my pointis due, I'm sure, to unavoidable haste on your part, rather than an inability to grasp WP policy. Articles that have no good reference sources should not exist. Full stop. As for famous WP principles, you would appear to be employing the time-tested "Yes, this article is crap, but lots of articles on WP are crap, so what's your problem?" Bring on the Fluffy the housecat articles! IronDuke  03:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no misreading at all. You appear to be under the misapprehension that if an article is not full and complete then it should be deleted. This has never been a deletion criterion on Wikipedia. Even stubs are acceptable articles. -- Necrothesp 10:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends on the stub. Many are deleted right away, especially ones with no refs. If it's very clear it will eventually become a full article, sometimes latitude is given. This article could languish for years without anybody bothering to add any meaningful references to it, quite possibly because there's nothing to add. IronDuke  16:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No stub is deleted right away (or should be) unless it meets the criteria for speedy deletion, which are quite specific. -- Necrothesp 17:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Unindented...you are right, speedy criteria are quite specific. Here is one of them:

7.     Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. (emphasis added)

This sums up, precisely, why this article ought to have been speedied and, failing that, been prodded and, failing that, been AfD'd. But really, just speedying it would have been easiest. IronDuke 23:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And exactly how is this "a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content"? It doesn't fall into any of those categories. You can't just fit something into a criterion that it doesn't fit into and that particular criterion deliberately covers only a specifically defined group of things - it's not designed to cover all articles. And as the AfD is proving, most people disagree with you that it should even be deleted, let alone speedied. Hence the deletion process that doesn't allow people to just delete articles because they feel like it. -- Necrothesp 02:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean to suggest that TV shows are an exception? We speedy all of those other examples, but not precious TV shows, however obscure? I notice throughout this that you fail to provide evidence of notabilty, merely assertion, which is also true of not most, but all, of the people who disagree with me. IronDuke  02:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are the one who failed to provide evidence of non-notability. Things are not non-notable because you say they are. The fact it was a major drama serial starring well-known actors and shown on the main TV channel in the United Kingdom makes it notable without any further notability needing to be "proved" (I'm not quite sure how it even could be). How on earth does that make it "obscure"? How many people does it need to be seen by to be non-obscure? It is incumbent upon you to prove non-notability, which you have not done. And yes, TV shows are an exception. Read the policy. It only covers those categories which are listed. It does not provide them just as examples and it is not intended to be expanded to all categories of articles. -- Necrothesp 14:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)