Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hills End


 * 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 of the speedy variety, given the withdrawal.  Daniel  11:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hills End

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails WP:N, since no secondary coverage is given. Tagged with notability concerns since Oct 06. PROD was contested with comment: "yes, it is an unsourced stub, but it being broadcast on ABC is enough of an assertion of notability to me". One might debate whether that point is an assertion of notability; however, it certainly does not establish notability. Simply being broadcast on a certain station cannot be a reason for inclusion: Wikipedia is not a TV guide, and notability is not inherited. -- Sent here as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 14:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC) *Delete Notability not established. --Malcolmxl5 19:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The article says it's a TV series, but also that it was only broadcast on one date. The IMDB link says it's a miniseries. I'm guessing it's a made-for-TV movie. On that assumption, given that there appears to be nothing notable about it, I'm voting to delete, but I might lean towards keeping it if it was actually a series or possibly even a miniseries that aired over several nights. I'm not too bothered by deleting an article that can't even make that clear, though. Propaniac 17:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep now that article has been improved. Propaniac 14:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Change to keep now that article has been improved. --Malcolmxl5 18:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite. This is a telemovie based on a 1962 book by Ivan Southall which according to the National Library of Australia "received immediate critical recognition both in Australia and overseas". . The article should be rewritten to be about the book as well as the television movie. Capitalistroadster 03:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 03:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep is certainly notable, needs verifiable sources added, not deletion Recurring dreams 05:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but re-write, the book is more notable and the film should be a section of a single article about both.Garrie 06:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep article, shoot nominator. Southall is a really notable author from my childhood, and the notability should have been established if the nominator had done their research. Moreover, the fact that it was filmed as a miniseries should make it damned obvious. Articles for deletion is not a step in the cleanup process. Reading the reasons, did the nominator even realise this is a book we're talking about? Rebecca 06:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stay civil, and please read the version of the article I was nominating. It was clearly about a TV series, not about a book; and no independent sources had been given since Oct 06, when notability concerns had been raised. (IMDB alone does not establish notability.) Note that it is the editor's responsibility to provide sources; cf. WP:V. The notability tag clearly states that articles may be deleted if no third-party sources are provided, so you shouldn't be too surprised. --B. Wolterding 09:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This does not mean that you do not have a duty to do your research before nominating articles for deletion. An article should not be nominated because it is unsourced - it should only be nominated if you believe it is unsourcable, something which you could not have known since you apparently did not bother to check yourself. Rebecca 01:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. Since the article has been changed considerably in the meantime, and sources have been provided, I withdraw the nomination. --B. Wolterding 09:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdraw. Since the article has been changed considerably in the meantime, and sources have been provided, I withdraw the nomination. --B. Wolterding 09:23, 19 July 2007 (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.