Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/After Eden (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete.  AK Radecki Speaketh  04:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

After Eden
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I know leeway is given for some TV shows that air nationally but I question whether this radio program which consisted of six half-hour eps from February 1995-March 1995 really meets guidelines for notability. Thoughts? I find no evidence it's otherwise notable (i.e. world's shortest). TravellingCari 21:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC) Bundled for the same reason: 
 * Note previous AfD appears to be about a different subject with the same name. TravellingCari  21:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

!Vote "keep", in order to ensure debate -- SockpuppetSamuelson (talk)


 * Don't worry WP will have plenty of things to debate about even without this one. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all three... each of whch have the one source which only verifies they aired, with no show of notability. If notability can be shown, I'll happily change my vote.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ff m  15:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete -- I'm with Schmidt. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - That fact that nothing can be said about it beside it exists (and the names of two stars) shows that it is not really notable. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Too short-lived, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable short lived radio programs  C t j f 8 3 Talk 18:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * very tentative Keep I think it is easier having an article for every national show than deciding individually which ones are too trivial to list, or trying to fix a criterion. Cari, you are presumably going by some standard--what is it? Length of run? Length of program? As for going by independent sourcing in RSs, I suppose searching print newspapers from the period would give several sources if anyone wanted to make the point.  DGG (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment yep - the standard is the handful of episodes <10, often 4-6 - usually half hour or fifteen minutes in run time and no more than two months in duration. Any more than that and the articles appear to have some notability or chance. I didn't do a search on every single one but once I realised the pattern, most were no more than trivial mentions i.e. this show airs today with no evidence of why its notable. I disagree, I don't think we need an article for every show that ever had a handful of epsiodes on one of the BBC Radio channels if there's no evidence it was notable, but we can agree to disagree. I think in 99.99% of cases, ones with such a short run were not and that's why they were cancelled. I don't think we are or should be a catalog of everything that aired. What are your thoughts on the benefit of these sentences? TravellingCari  19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a rational cut off point. The benefit is that if someone hears the name, they can find out here what it is at least. As for searching, most of what I would expect is the sort of local newspapers and popular magazines which are not indexed. I agree there is no great harm if we wait till someone actually wants to find the material. I certainly am not about to do that. and I assume you would recognize notable performers if they're in the links listed for the article--even notable ones get involved in flops. DGG (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, these appear to be mainly local productions nothing of substance. Where there was some I've re-directed, merged, etc. because info is good. Simple sentences, which is what these are. "X was a short-lived show that ran for 4-6 eps from month, year to next month, year". I don't think we're providing them any information. That's where I think we fall into not being a directory. TravellingCari  22:00, 1 October 2008 (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.