Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bear Behaving Badly Episodes


 * 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. Keeper   76  15:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Bear Behaving Badly Episodes

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable - article does nothing to suggest notability of any kind, including linking to external, verifiable, third-party sources. Talk Islander 09:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  13:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  13:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Current standards call for these sorts of list articles in lieu of individual episode articles (see WP:EPISODE). Any scripted show broadcast nationally on a major network (BBC One in this case) is inherently notable in this regard. Sourcing is a content issue, not an AFD one, unless of course it can be proven that the information in this article is a hoax. 23skidoo (talk) 14:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep if a show is notable, then a list of episodes is perfectly reasonable. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a recently-created but unfinished list by a newbie, and Bear Behaving Badly lists more (all?) episodes with the same summary. Thus, this list doesn't list anything (except the unsourced dates) that isn't already present somewhere else on wikipedia. – sgeureka t•c 16:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * - That it is written by a newcomer is irrelevant.--MrFishGo Fish 14:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's relevant in as far that newbies are more likely to create unnecessary articles (in good faith) and then abandon them (it's not a crime). But if he doesn't even show up in this AfD to defend his creation, why should someone else defend it for him? This AfD is just cleaning up after him, for better or for worse. – sgeureka t•c 15:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The point that newbies are more likely to create inappropriate articles would be relevant only if we could not examine the article and could only guess as to its merit based upon the history of its creator. MrFish is not defending the creator or the article; he is defending logical discourse. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean for this throw-away part of my comment to start a major wiki philosophy debate. My point was merely that this list may have been created in good-faith, but its deletion/redirection would be of no loss to wikipedia if we agreed that it is indeed redundant and (worse) incomplete und unsourced. – sgeureka t•c 10:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's true, however according to the article the show runs to 26 episodes at present and is ongoing. I assume it won't be kept in the main article forever, and merging just to unmerge it later is just beaurocracy for beaurocracy's sake. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This makes the assumption that a list of episodes will ever be notable enough for this programme. I am personally of the opinion that it won't, hence I started this AfD. Talk Islander 18:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 05:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: unsourced. -- Jeandré, 2008-09-07t09:15z
 * Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources leads me to conclude that the verifiability policy is not complied with in respect of this article. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2008 (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.