Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Little Blue (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 delete. Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Little Blue (TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable television series, with lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. I could not find anything to establish that the series is notable for a standalone article. All sources used in the article are either primary or unreliable, except I think this one. Fails WP:GNG. Ashley yoursmile!  11:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  Ashley  yoursmile!  11:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions.  Ashley  yoursmile!  11:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

-- Then let's edit it to get it up to the standard you seek. The problem is, being a 1970's children's TV show, there are few remaining references online. Yet, this was referenced in Wikipedia on Yorkshire TV for some years prior to me making an entry about it.

I feel this strikes at how one should construct Wikipedia articles. Is the point not that we collaboratively and incrementally construct reliable materials? Or are you advocating an article be pristine in its first incarnation, or else it must be deleted? I'd find it more useful if so-called "editors" took the approach of fleshing out an article or giving pointers as to what they wish to see included, instead of running to the delete button as their default option. Davidmwilliams (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

-- Oppose deletion: More detail has been added, including additional references, and importantly, clearing up the uncertainty in the previous text whereby the people credited changed because, it transpires, an original co-creator passed away. I hope you find this helpful. If not, then constructive guidance is certainly welcomed. Davidmwilliams (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * , thanks for the response. The sources you have added are not reliable with no evidence of editorial oversight. For instance, the "About us" of this website mentions that it is a blog which constitutes WP:SPS. This source is a retailer, hence definitely not reliable. This just verifies that the television series existed and nothing else. This is perhaps the only source which looks okay to me but I'm unsure about its reliability. Ashley  yoursmile!  13:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  13:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete ultimately not enough coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. The sources that cover this show in any detail are just blogs which are not considered reliable soureces. The strongest source highlighted by User:Ashleyyoursmile is just a blogger site with a custom domain name. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom . fails WP:GNG  NOT enough RS Samat lib (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2021 (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.