Talk:The Beverly Hillbillies (season 1)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because seasons 1 & 2 support TopUSTVShows. They provide information to users of that template directing them to which particular seasons were the top rated show. Having a separate article makes it clear to editors that this important season should be expanded and makes it clear to readers that this season is important. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Although the creator of this page has a long history of splitting seasons from episode lists in a way that is of questionable value, it seems that there has been a sort of equilibrium were the people who contest the wideranging effort have allowed season splits to remain for those seasons that are covered by any of the following templates: (ScreenActorsGuildAwards EnsembleTVDrama, GoldenGlobeTVDrama, EmmyAward DramaSeries, ScreenActorsGuildAwards EnsembleTVComedy, GoldenGlobeTVComedy, EmmyAward ComedySeries or TopUSTVShows.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your opposition to deletion doesn't address the problem for which this article was deleted - that it exactly duplicates the main episode list without adding anything that isn't already in that article. There are no ratings figures or any other content that supports the ratings claims. TopUSTVShows could be added to the main episode list and still have the same benefits that you claim. It makes no sense to split two seasons out and not the other seven. All seasons should be split or none. The claim that "Having a separate article makes it clear to editors that this important season should be expanded and makes it clear to readers that this season is important" seems specious. A counter argument would be that including TopUSTVShows in the main episode list article would make readers more aware when they realise that an allegedly important season does not have its own article. As for expanding, the main episode list has existed for seven years without expansion. It wasn't until December 2012 that the lead was made compliant with WP:REDUNDANCY and converted to use Episode list. Deleting this article now won't stop an editor recreating the article with appropriate expansion in the future but, as it exists now, it's simply redundant and unnecessary. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Typically at an WP:AFD, it is sufficient to show that an article is notable enough to exist. You are raising the bar to the point that I have to assume responsibility for expanding an article for it to be kept. Clearly, if a television show was the number one show in the country for a year, there are encyclopedic things to say about that season. I do not assume responsibility for expanding the article although it is a subject that should have a separate article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the article that shows it is notable enough to exist and there are plenty of season articles like this that have been redirected or deleted. There is nothing in this, the main episode list or the main series article that demonstrates the series "was the number one show in the country for a year". -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In fact, there are no seasons that have been the number one rated show that have been redirected.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what that has to do with this article since there is no evidence that it's a number one rated season. As you've been told elsewhere, season articles shouldn't exist just so you can slap a navbox on them. This article does nothing else except duplicates an existing article so it shouldn't exist. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is evidence that it was number one and I have never been told that articles should not exist for these templates: ScreenActorsGuildAwards EnsembleTVDrama, GoldenGlobeTVDrama, EmmyAward DramaSeries, ScreenActorsGuildAwards EnsembleTVComedy, GoldenGlobeTVComedy, EmmyAward ComedySeries or TopUSTVShows--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The sole justification for the existence of an article should not be as a place to put a navbox, but that's exactly what you are arguing. As I've said, the template could easily be added to the main episode list article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)