Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Street (Children in Need)


 * 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. Non-admin closure. Nominator has withdrawn. See my statement at the bottom of discussion. — Half  Price  21:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

East Street (Children in Need)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not a program in its own right, just a 15 minute sketch on an annual charity fund-raising program. Not likely to be made into a stand-alone program. — Half  Price  14:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge With children in need with links from the two soaps pages.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable cross-over episode. I have more sources that I didn't get around to incorporating yet. Anemone  Projectors  14:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * — Note to closing admin: AnemoneProjectors (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. — Half   Price  15:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's quite notable actually, for what it was. Sources are available, from what I can see they're beng added now. A quick search determines it's notability in any case. RAIN..the..ONE  HOTLINE 15:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nom Comment: We need to look at WP:Notability (events) here really. The event was not of any lasting historical significance nor has it had a particular impact. It did not receive sustained coverage either. — Half  Price  16:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the fact that it was brought up a month later by one of the cast members? Anemone  Projectors  18:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know the exact details of that example but it doesn't sound very impressive quite frankly. — Half  Price  18:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well Half Price, I'd suggest we do not have to look to the guidelines for notibility of recent events, which you cited. This is an article on fiction, so as with every work of fiction it isn't going to have the same "lasting historical significance" as the war in Iraq or a new bill being passed through parliment... For what the article is about, I'd say it holds it own now. RAIN..the..ONE  HOTLINE 18:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah but I was suggesting we look at it from that angle because I believe it fails in terms of fictional works as well, and actually has a better chance of passing the events guidelines because of its crossover nature. As I have shown though, it doesn't anyway. — Half  Price  21:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Satisfies the general notability guideline requirement of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. We can certainly debate the quality of the sources: of the eleven present, a couple are tabloids (The Sun, Daily Mirror), but there are also middle-market newspapers (Daily Mail, Evening Herald) and a couple of the biggest entertainment websites in the UK (AOL Television, Digital Spy). Attempting to apply the events guideline is not ideal, as I think many television episodes would fall down on "sustained coverage" while remaining within acceptable bounds of the GNG. Unless an episode is particularly ground-breaking in some respect, or attracts later commentary through a DVD release or award nomination, the majority of coverage will naturally occur during the immediate period around its broadcast. Frickative  22:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But it isn't a television episode, it was a one-off sketch that was on another TV program. — Half  Price  22:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's your opinion. "Episode", "episode", "episode". Anemone  Projectors  22:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mirriam-Webster say an episode is "one of a series of loosely connected stories or scenes" or "the part of a serial presented at one performance". Wiktionary defines it as "An installment of a drama told in parts, as in a TV series". The Free Dictionary, Princeton University's WordNet and Encarta are all in agreement too. It's not just my opinion, it's fact. — Half  Price  23:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it still satisfies GNG and Frickative's argument is still valid. Anemone  Projectors  23:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While I believe my main point about the GNG stands, I can't accept that the article should be deleted as a sketch under a sub-guideline, when the sources themselves do not treat it as such, but as an "episode" or "mini-episode". Frickative  23:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. More than satisfies general notability guidelines. Additionally, it also has room to grow, to focus on i. writing, ii. production details, iii. reviews (particularly those which probe the mini-episode's humour in more detail), iii. cast reactions, iv. Children in Need-related figures. The Reception section needs a lot of expansion, partially to justify the article's existence, but partially because analysis of the episode's in-jokes etc. should amount to the main fibre of its notability.~ZytheTalk to me! 20:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nom withdraws: I don't agree at all that this article should be on Wikipedia, but I see that after explaining my argument fully I am not getting anywhere. The result of this discussion is not in any doubt so I won't delay it and make someone else close the debate. — Half  Price  21:49, 26 December 2010 (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.