Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Takes Two (1982 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   keep. (non-admin closure)  →TSU tp* 15:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It Takes Two (1982 TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for TV shows or the general notability guideline (contested prod) – hysteria18 (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Only has 3 external link references. One is "The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows" (an obvious collection of everything and not considering notability), the IMDB profile (which has been asserted several times as not reliable), and the TV.com listing of the site. These references suggest, at least to me, a lack of sources and reasonable notability for this series. Hasteur (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs cleanup for sure, but I don't see how it fails to meet notability guidelines. It ran on ABC, so that's a national scope. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the guideline In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a purely local talk radio program can be notable enough for inclusion if it played a role in exposing a major political scandal, and a national television program may not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any significant media coverage. In this case it was cancelled after one season. As far as I know (and based on the scrambling to find more/better sourcs we still have the same questionable sources. Hasteur (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Plenty of local shows have Wiki articles as well, especially if they are popular and successful for the area they broadcast in. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by numbaonestunna (talk • contribs)

Keep. The Complete Directory is reliable source enough. Apparently some of you are still new to Wikipedia---what else can explain the fact that you're not acknowledging all the other short-lived series that have had articles on here for a long time. It shouldn't matter if a series was popular or not, or whether or not it made an impact on the industry, society, etc. Ever since Wiki's existence, new articles have been made all the time for upcoming shows, many of them which get cancelled after short runs every year. Do we then decide to delete those articles just because the shows are no longer newsworthy? I mean, articles for The Class and Better With You were about one-season runs, and I highly doubt anyone is going to scrap those now, even if they were newsworthy at one time. Everything is notable if it involves a national TV production employing high-profile Hollywood writers, actors and other miscellaneous crew. Also, the actors who are involved with these articles in question deserve to have obscure shows accessible in blue links instead of in red (if you all catch my drift), so that readers can further get an idea of the sorts of projects they were involved with, beyond what they're most recognized for. Lastly, I have started on a separate article for Witt/Thomas Productions, and my goal is to have every one of their series listed have an active article. As for this page, I am sure archived news articles and press releases for It Takes Two exist..but realistically, you all are asking for more sources than what most short-lived series have on here. Time to be more aware. talk
 * Please strike your Ad-Hom attack. Hysteria18 and I are not a new editors.  I am quite familiar with notability guidelines and therefore familiar with the nuances thereof.  You on the other hand have taken several breaks from editing, have a significantly lower edit count overall and have multiple warnings on your page.  It seems to me that while you may have had expertiese, Wikipedia's policies have passed you by.  Before you post again, pleas read the above mentioned policy.  Please also take a look at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as you already have stumbled across 2 of the arguments to avoid. Hasteur (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been editing consistently for almost six years; only, I have more than one account on Wikipedia. Therefore, you cannot go by the account I'm currently using alone. The multiple warnings were only for photos, which many editors encounter because of the ever-changing amount of info. categories added to the upload form. I have read Wikipedia's policies, but as I have clearly demonstrated here, I do not agree with all of the deletion policies that have been put into place, which many users as a whole apparently pass over as well. Since this is not a forum for getting political with Wikipedia, I will not go any further on that subject. (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.91.100 (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per discussions in the past, all American primetime network television series are automatically notable, and this one starring Patty Duke, one of the most well known TV actresses, definitely so, along with being a career jumping-off point for Helen Hunt and Anthony Edwards. Some of the most minute details can be removed, but otherwise the article and sourcing to the Directory establishes the series well enough as notable.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 20:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation Requested. According to the guideline if there aren't reliable sources that cover it in depth, we can't keep the article.  Surely there's a reference that supports your claims. Hasteur (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment By your standards then, we'd have to put up Joanie Loves Chachi because it's also single-sourced, when anyone can name it as "that Scott Baio show" or "the Happy Days spin-off that bombed". Generally, primetime television series usually have automatic keeps in AfD as has been past procedure because it's common sense to catalog television series that have aired to national audiences, especially in primetime, and especially pre-1985 before cable networks began to ramp up original content. Sources have been added by others from publications for this article, meanwhile, so your concerns have been addressed.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Further comment Also, I would like to strongly urge you to remain civil throughout this discussion. Leaving edit summaries that you're trying to shame keep rationales into deletions and calling a contributor an "old dog" are not appropriate for an AfD.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 00:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep Wikipedia doesn't require the sources are immediately cited, just that they exist. WP:BEFORE require that we search for them before nominating an article for deletion (and for voting delete, too), and in a case like this it's quite easy to find book and news sources about this TV-series, including some printed encyclopedias. If even we don't do a research, "common sense" tells us that a TV-series broadcasted in prime time by ABC, starred by Richard Crenna and Patty Duke, created by Susan Harris, that already includes a reliable source, it is probably notable. Cavarrone (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I have read extensively the portion of the Directory that is supposed to support the notability for this. 3 Paragraphs in a book of 600 pages or more (~9000 paragraphs). The reliable sources must offer significant coverage. This article and it's sources fall well below that requirement.  It's quite disturbing to see how poorly the notability guidelines get applied. Hasteur (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, have you tried to make a search in news and book archives instead of wasting your (and our) time in useless polemics? As you claim to be an experienced user, have you never heard about WP:BEFORE, and if yes, why do not apply it? What about articles on The Phoenix, Chicago Tribune, The Press Courier, The Calgary Heralds, The Palm Beach Post, The Leader Post, The Milwaukee Sentinel, New York Times? If you are unable to find sources like these, it would be better you'll abstain from voting into AfDs... And finally no, three paragraphs in a book is not a trivial coverage. Cavarrone (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Not the deleter's responsibility to find sources, it's the content adder's responsibility. And I'll thank you to stop attacking my credibility. Hasteur (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just for the future, you are patently wrong... WP:BEFORE is the first point in the Deletion Process, and point D explicitally says "D. If the main concern is notability, search for additional sources. The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform. etc.etc." And our notability guideline explicitally says: Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Laziness should not be a reason for starting useless, silly deletion'discussions like this one. Cavarrone (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you also talking about the references that were just added in the last few hours? I think the summary in the Complete Directory only has two paragraphs, but it basically explains all the plot details that were included in this article's synopsis. 71.243.91.100 (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)numbaonestunna (talk)
 * Keep due to sources quoted by user:Cavarrone.  Th e S te ve   11:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep After searching the Google News archives, found plenty of sources that support notability. Roodog2k (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2012 (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.