Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronicle (UK TV series)


 * 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. The article has been updated. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Chronicle (UK TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

In the eight years that the article has been in place, not a single usable source has been found (only IMDB and a dead piracy site, besides primary sources) and notability has not been established, so I’m nominating it on notability grounds. Thank you. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by nominator now that all deletion supporters have recanted. Not sure if it would be kosher for me to close it myself. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Creating AfD per request, I am neutral in this AfD Hhkohh (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I searched for and found some sources that would be expected for such a series. and . I vaguely remember watching it once as well. It's the sort of series where you watch it to learn about serious topics and the series itself is not relevant. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Somewhat strong delete. I don't see a way we can improve this article. There's no strongly related articles we can merge to, plus, that show died decades ago. It's unlikely someone will ever visit it, so why waste any time improving it with whatever's left of info about it? Techy Halnerd   (speak)  16:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article is a mere two sentences long and does not say very much. Vorbee (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * it was a much longer article as shown here before it was slashed Atlantic306 (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Correction: it was exactly the same size of an article, and a long list of WP:INDISCRIMINATE airdates and titles more suited to a database. If you can add information (not just raw data) about each episode, go for it, but from what I can tell, there is no information about a majority of them. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep has reliable sources book sources as shown above and as it was screened on the BBC when there were only 3 tv channels in the UK it is bound to have been reviewed in reliable sources such as The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I had another look. "In the 1960s and 1970s, the best known UK programme was the BBC's documentary series Chronicle." and "Chronicle was a successful BBC television series which ran for over 25 years" suggest that it was relevant. I have also found that it was created by Magnus Magnusson, and there are citations for this. WILLIAM TINNING. "Magnus Magnusson has cancer Journalist and author 'in good fettle' but cancels appearances." The Herald. Herald & Times Group. 2006. HighBeam Research. 16 Sep. 2018 . and "Magnus battles cancer." Daily Record (Glasgow, Scotland). MGN Ltd. 2006. HighBeam Research. 16 Sep. 2018 . Overall I think this is a keep. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Obviously notable series which was a landmark in early Television treatment of archaeology. Is now being expanded with strong WP:RS's. The article was merely neglected. That is no reason for deletion. WP should have an article covering this influential series. Simon Adler (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NTV Chronicle was considered one of the flagship programmes on the BBC and it ran for 25 years -  if that isn't notable you can very well delete 90% of all TV show articles on Wikipedia.  Hzh (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite right Hzh. If we start to delete articles on the grounds of 'popularity', and being 'forgotten' we are on a slippery path indeed. I suspect the issue is the age demographic of WP readers, who simply have not heard of the series, being too young. Well let's delete every TV programme article which was made prior to 1980? Its the same logic. Simon Adler (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The IP nominator of this deletion also removed a big chunk of content that is valid for television show, it would seem that he or she is unaware of the guidelines for television and deletion criteria. For example the nominator is supposed to check for sources themselves per WP:BEFORE, and the sources in the article do not determine the notability per WP:NEXIST. There is a reason why IP editors cannot nominate article for deletion. Hzh (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Registering an account imparts no magical knowledge or expertise that longtime anon editors lack, but please do a more thorough check of my browser search history. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The following vote to Keep and Improve was posted to the article’s talkpage before this AFD page was created: 67.14.236.193 (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Chronicle was a well-respected series and is considered a landmark in TV's first forays into archaeology. I have provided a provisional source from a book published by the Institute of Archaeology, University College, London, which discusses the series in some depth. From a cursory search there are other independent sources discussing the series and it's impact. It would appear to be notable. I do remember watching it as a child. Keep and improve. I would advise against deletion. Irondome (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I never doubted that it was on the air or that people watched it; I doubted whether anyone wrote about it, given the article’s long history of no reliable sources. If they can be found even with a “cursory search,” I’m at a loss to explain the total lack of editor interest. But thanks! —67.14.236.193 (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's just been forgotten which is a shame. WP is a huge virtual warehouse, and it has unvisited, and unloved corners. We could fix the article up so it is fit for purpose. Appreciate the response. Thanks, Irondome (talk) 02:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It aired on the BBC nationally for 25 years. Ridiculous nom; so it isn't Doctor Who. If it stayed on the air that long, people were interested in watching long enough to keep it on the air that long. We have "26-and-out" literal toy commercials that most kids didn't care about, but they still get an article here because some kid cared about them.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:21, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel like I keep saying this, but the issue isn’t whether people were interested; it’s whether sources have covered it in-depth. For instance, Bravestarr cites news stories and DVD reviews; it may not be as notable as Doctor Who, and I’ve never even heard of it, but that gets an article here because RSes have written about it specifically. On the other hand, I would say Spiral Zone gets an article here solely because no one’s bothered to delete it yet, assuming the sources it cites are the best we can do. For all I know, everyone on the planet except for me grew up watching Spiral Zone, but if none of them ever produced anything that discusses it in any meaningful capacity, it shouldn’t have more than a mention in the project. All of which is to say, please keep arguments focused on coverage of the subject. Longevity and popularity don’t matter without it. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So will you now withdraw the nomination given the sources found? Hzh (talk) 08:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Undoubtedly they did and sources have easily been located, suggesting you didn't perform WP:BEFORE before the nomination. I'm getting tired of AfD's for longtime shows just because 'nobody watched this and sourcing is thin'. By design, educational programming usually isn't going to get as much coverage as primetime entertainment programming. Please consider as such for future noms.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 13:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help that many appear to have the strange idea that if sources can't be easily found online, it doesn't exist. That is particularly problematic for older shows whose coverage may not be archived online. Coupled with an ignorance of the guideline (which clearly stated that such programmes are likely to be notable), and an inability to conduct searches properly, it means that others would have to do the work for them, and spend time discussing things they don't need to. Hzh (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Likely to be notable ≠ actually notable. But yes, I bow to your Google-fu regarding subjects I’m unfamiliar with, and I withdraw my support to delete (I can’t withdraw the nomination because it does have other “delete” votes). Not sure where you get the idea that this volunteer work is compulsory, though, and I would not have been able to get this article into its current state myself anyway. —67.14.236.193 (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would educational programming be designed to receive less coverage? Wouldn’t it be the more important programming? —67.14.236.193 (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:HEY. The article has now been properly sourced and cleaned up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Now that the article has been completely rewritten, I take back my original nomination. Techy Halnerd   (speak)  06:42, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I am happy to withdraw my call for a deletion now that the article has been tidied up a great deal. Vorbee (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2018 (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.