Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergency (UK television programme)


 * 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. This option is more popular and more convincing than merging, given that the content is in fact substantially unsourced.  Sandstein  18:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Emergency (UK television programme)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence this TV programme meets WP:NMEDIA/GNG. Prod declined with a suggestion of merging, but no target was specified. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  15:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Advice strand as part of This Morning; this was clearly just a segment of that show with generic first aid tips.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge When you had read the article, you could have seen that it was a program of ITV Granada, a valid merge-option. The Banner  talk 14:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ping User:YorkshireLad, who offered some thoughts about a potential for a related merge. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd argue that, for the same reason as I gave on WP:Articles for deletion/Fight Night (TV programme), merging with ITV Granada makes little sense: that page mentions only a handful of their most notable programmes, of which this is definitely not one. As Nate noted above, this appears to be, in fact, less a programme and more an advice strand within This Morning (TV programme), so I guess it could be merged there, but the list of what every episode was about would be overkill on that page.  The This Morning page might warrant mention of Emergency 's existence, however, since that does seem to be sourced. YorkshireLad (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'd support a merge the target you propose, the problem is that the current 'reference' is not problematic: a non-hyperlinked entry for... I am not sure what. A web page? A name of a show...? Effectively this article is unreferenced. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * From the citation template the source looks to be a book called Granada Television. I can't find the book online (in fact, the first result on Google is the Wikipedia page for this show…).  The citation was added in the very first version of the page by User:Rich Farmbrough; Rich, perhaps you can shed some light, although as I'm asking about an edit made eight years ago it's totally reasonable if you can't!  YorkshireLad (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it's a booklet called "Emergency" published by Granada. Next time I find it I'll donate it to Internet Archive to make it more available.  I believe it was shown in it's own right on ITV, as I watched it at the time, and I certainly didn't watch This Morning.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough  (the apparently calm and reasonable) 12:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC).


 * Thank you for expanding on it, Rich; I admit as an American the structure of the ITV breakfast programming has been a confusion point (some things are in the show, some are outside of the This Morning-devoted block or in the interregnum between TM and what is now Good Morning Britian because of how the contracts were previously awarded), so confirming in a small way it existed in its own right is good here. 16:16, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, perhaps with mention of its existence on This Morning (TV programme), per my reply above. YorkshireLad (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge where you will. This is a poorly documented show, made worse by the fact that Emergency Ward 10 makes it hard to search for.  I suspect the sources are out there, but they are hard to find, since stuff is still in copyright.   I checked a few books on Granada and ITV for the era, with no success.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough  (the apparently calm and reasonable) 12:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC).


 * Merge into ITV Granada This Morning (TV programme) as there is so little content here. Previous to the AfD procedure, this article has been prodded in violation with WP:PRD. Please use only appropriate procedures! gidonb (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood how PROD works. Feel free to take this specific case to WT:PROD and ask for a review. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * PROD must only be used if no opposition to the deletion is expected. With a proper WP:BEFORE you could have identified a merge-option, giving a big chance on opposition. The Banner  talk 18:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please learn how PROD work, as do MERGE. If you don't understand basic procedures, you really should be careful making comments here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do remember your previous AN/I-case about your over-enthousiastic use of CSD, what now seems to have shifted to an over-enthousiastic use of PROD. Combined with bad reading, that raises concerns. The Banner  talk 10:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I remember at least two AN(I) threads about your disruptive deprodding and such, and proposals of topic bans for you. Your point? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL, you better tone down a bit. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Piotrus, from the link you provided it is clear that you understand very well but disregard how PRDs work and that you know that I know how these work. When you disagree with a policy there is a do and a don't. The don't is disregarding the policy. Don't do this because our rules apply to everyone. They create a convention to work with, reduce unnecessary friction among editors and create an even playfield. Your total disregard of the WP:PRD is the problem I raised above. The do is to discuss the policy. You just showed that you are doing that part. It is a good thing by itself. I'm not going to take that away from you. However, the fact that you argue the part of the rule you dislike, does not fix any of the huge havoc that you are creating throughout Wikipedia in your blatant disrespect for conventions and for your fellow editors. gidonb (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately in my view it is you who misunderstands the prods and creates havoc by challenging fellow editors who are just trying to clear likely spam and such. The last time checked Signpost had a series of aticles about dangers of spam, not about dangers of overeager deletionists. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for self-identifying as an "overeager deletionist". The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 08:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an attempt to hide behind others. However, I don't see "fellow editors" prod as bad as you do. I don't think you get it wrong either. By your own link, you know very well what you need to change in order to be able to mass prod by policy. This means that you understand that your mass prodding conflicts with policy. Wikipedia conventions and avoiding the havoc you cause aren't important enough to you. gidonb (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep up violating WP:NPA and you'll end up at WP:ANI. That's the last thing I am feeding you. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ow, threatening because you get cornered? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I don’t see anything here that could even be rescued for a merge - it’s all unsourced content. I’ve not seen it, but it sounds like a series of VT inserts within This Morning, as a magazine programme. If the consensus really is a merge or redirect, I would urge doing it towards This Morning rather than ITV Granada, as that would make more sense. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is sourced, so why you claim that it is unsourced content is a mystery to me. And the source was there since 2012. I have not the idea that was wrong at that point.  The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s not sourced appropriately, there’s no way of an editor finding it if they would want to, and in any case, one primary source does not indicate notability. Please read WP:RS. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete It is clear that the program fails WP:GNG. Merging it to This Morning makes little sense as it was apparently also shown independently and does not seem to have played any significant role in the history of This Morning. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 07:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is nothing of sustainable encyclopedic value here. BD2412  T 03:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per reason mentioned by . Maybe the article creator can improve the article with more sources than WP:ATA. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.