Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Activity (U.S. 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) HindWikiConnect 23:28, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

No Activity (U.S. TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No references. Does not satisfy television notability. Too little information to be encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Subject has significant coverage per   KGirl  (Wanna chat?) 17:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   C Thomas3   (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to CBS All Access No Activity unless we get expansion in the next seven days; as-is the article is completely WP:ITEXISTS without much elaboration.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to No Activity, the Australian original on which the U.S. version is based, where it already has a section -- Whats new?(talk) 22:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect –Since no enough content for standalone page now, and it already has section in No Activity –Ammarpad (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, many reviews online.  Should be updated, not deleted.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSTBESOURCES –Ammarpad (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No. I'm not saying there must be/probably are sources, I'm saying there are many sources.  A quick Google search illustrates enough significant coverage in reliable sources.  --  Wikipedical (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. There has been a considerable amount of coverage among various reputable sources. It needs time to continue to be updated. Should not be deleted. BoogerD (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSTBESOURCES –Ammarpad (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist un Eins uno 18:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has been greatly improved and sourced since submission here. —  Wylie pedia  09:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as it now has references to significant content in reliable sources such as The Guardian and The Los Angeles Times, passses WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2017 (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.