Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Can Do That (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 redirect to List of programmes broadcast by CITV. Consensus that there isn't sufficient notability demonstrated and that a redirect is suitable. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I Can Do That (UK TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced 11 year old article that does not establish the TV show's notability. – numbermaniac  05:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:01, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 09:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect to List of programmes broadcast by CITV Unremarkable kids game show with an unremarkable format, reception and ratings accompanying it.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 16:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect to List of programmes broadcast by CITV Yesterday some references have been added to the article, but none are still worthy enough to establish notability of this show. Two of the sources are coming from a site that is just listing the episodes (so basically an episode guide), so they contribute nothing to this case. And the third one is just a Top 18 list of game shows in some context, which is not really a reliable or significant secondary source. Fails WP:GNG and WP:TVSERIES. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually it would qualify under WP:TVSERIES as it was a nationally broadcast show. Pretty sure there are sources, the problem is that these sources aren't likely to be easily available online, an issue for old TV shows. Hzh (talk) 00:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:TVSERIES does not say the show is notable only if it is a nationally broadcast show, only that it is *likely* to. Also says In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. This show does not have sources to back it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The word "likely" is there to encourage you to think more about notability of the subject, because such shows by their very nature would have coverage in the media. As I indicated, many older TV shows are hard to source even for some major shows, given that many of these sources are not available on the internet. I'm pretty sure that there was coverage if someone is willing to look into the archives of newspapers. (I remember reading about the show even though I have never seen it.) Hzh (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect without deletion: No reason has been given as to why the content should be deleted and not just redirected, as a lack of notability doesn't prevent reusing the content (and references) in another, more notable article. Modernponderer (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * When I proposed this AFD, the article was unreferenced. Now that there are references, yes, the content could be used elsewhere. – numbermaniac  00:48, 16 October 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.