Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamish and Dougal


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hamish and Dougal

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

So unreferenced and full of original research (for so long) that I want to weep. No indication whatsoever that the topic is especially notable; this is inevitable when no references at all are provided, of course. Some IP deleted the PROD-tag with no explanation ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  senator  ─╢ 19:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable BBC radio comedy featuring two extremely notable comedians. Google News shows sufficient coverage, e.g. from The Times, the Glasgow Herald, and Yorkshire Post. The scripts have been published in book form. Hardly surprising that the PROD was removed. Perhaps tagging it as being unreferenced would help deal with the problem if it's been like this for such a long time?--Michig (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because those tags are known for producing results. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  duumvirate  ─╢ 21:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do. If you're not prepared to put any effort into the article yourself, but still feel that it's lacking, at least tag it correctly so that someone who may have it on their watchlist can deal with your concerns. This article can be fixed by editing and shouldn't have been brought to AFD.--Michig (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're not prepared to put any effort into the article yourself, at least tag it correctly so that someone who may have it on their watchlist can deal with your concerns. So how many improvements have you made to the article in the twelve hours since you noted the above sources? Did you add either of them in? Did you copyedit anything? Or did you choose to spend your time spouting about it here but actually doing nothing of any use? ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  most serene  ─╢ 07:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We're here, unfortunately, to discuss whether this article should be deleted. Keep your comments on-topic please.--Michig (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, my questions were, "So how many improvements have you made to the article in the twelve hours since you noted the above sources? Did you add either of them in? Did you copyedit anything? Or did you choose to spend your time spouting about it here but actually doing nothing of any use?" A little research has enabled me to find the answers myself: none, no, no, yes. In that order. So don't give me all this "keep your comments on-topic" crap to try and cover up your apparent hypocrisy over this issue. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  CANUKUS  ─╢ 16:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment on articles, not editors, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand by my assertion that Michig's behaviour over this issue has been hypocritical. This is not a personal attack, as it is commenting on a specific content issue rather than on a contributor in a general way. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  stannary parliament  ─╢ 16:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd advise you to stop now. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In your own words, "Get over it." Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  co-prince  ─╢ 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A radio series running for over 5 years, a spin-off from another radio show which has been running for 20+ years. As Michig says, notability isn't the problem, references are! If we are going to delete because of lack of, or incomplete, references there won't be much of WP left! --Richhoncho (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is the article at some points reads like someones opinion and is full of weasle words, I've seen far longer Comedy series aticles.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agreeing with TreasuryTag, the article has no resources so it is impossible to tell if the article is true or whether it is all original research--Lerdthenerd (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'll gladly join the search party for references if that's all we need. As Richhoncho said, it's a notable spin-off from a very successful show. Bangdrum (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:Michig. It appears the lack of s is going to be addressed. HairyWombat (talk) 06:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've addressed it. Other editors are welcome to add more of course. I've spent about an hour of my time on it. Need I say more? --Michig (talk) 18:16, 4 July 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.