Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rural purge (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Clear consensus that the subject is notable and the article should be retained. Improvements to the article may be discussed in an appropriate forum. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Rural purge
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article was previously nominated for deletion back in May 2005 and kept. Though 15 years later it remains on Wikipedia and I don't know if it should be purged (no pun intended) from Wikipedia or if there is enough editing that can remove most of the original research that the article has been tagged with since this past June can save this article besides an episode of Mo Rocca’s Mobituaries podcast and possibly the book companion that discuss this topic as references. Pahiy (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable topic (see GBooks), and content is sourced. Looks like Rural_purge should be cut substantially if it's not sourceable, but otherwise I don't see the problem. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is not a strong initial argument when the nominator says I don't know if it should be purged. What we have is a tag accusing this of being Original Research.  That is the opinion (and on my personal page, I equate these tags to vandalism, so my opinion of a tag is clear) of ONE EDITOR.  We have currently 22 sources, several covering the same territory as the article, the prose in the article has some pretty substantial basis. Essentially the NOM's "I don't know" based on the earlier editor's generalized commentary could prevent a future generation from learning about phenomenon of our history from wikipedia; the number one source of information on the internet.  For those placing tags, come up with the goods.  Be specific about what you think is wrong and let other editors react to it. After leaving that tag, the editor, probably justifiably, removed an entire section of loosely associated information about a swath of series ending, not all being rural series but shows that generally skewed older. Problem solved, right? Except he left the damned tag. Leaving a tag with no basis devalues the look of wikipedia content, this article and attracts nuisance AfDs like this. Trackinfo (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Vague and vexatious banner tags are best dealt with removing them rather than the entire article. I have done so. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. To my broader point; most editors, even an experienced editor as I might claim to be, will generally not mess with tags.  Tags languish for years, with no power to cause action.  That is unless we have a situation like this, where an editor is unfamiliar with the subject or value of the content and causes a problem like this AfD.  There must be millions of tags on articles I don't frequent and don't care about. Kilroy was here.Trackinfo (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The title could use work as I wasn't sure what the topic was, going into it. But it's certainly notable – see The "Rural Purge" (1969-1972) and decline of early rural television, for example.  Another case of WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable subject meets GNG.  Glee anon 11:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per good available sources in books, including, Reimagining Rural: Urbanormative Portrayals of Rural Life (2016) and The Midwest Farmer's Daughter: In Search of an American Icon (2012) and The Social History of the American Family: An Encyclopedia (2014). Right cite (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I click Google news source at the top of the AFD and find ample mention of this. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mobituaries-with-mo-rocca-when-tv-sitcoms-died-in-the-rural-purge/ gives significant coverage of this notable event.   D r e a m Focus  13:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: The subject is covered extensively in Rube Tube: CBS and Rural Comedy in the Sixties (2018). — Toughpigs (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - As other have stated, whilst the article could the improved, the subject is definitely notable enough to warrant itself an article. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This was a very unusual wave of cancellations that forever changed television and more than meets GNG.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 17:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is looking to be a Snow Keep, so my comment is probably unnecessary at this point, but just a cursory look shows quite a lot of coverage of this in reliable sources. The article should definitely be worked on a lot (entire sections, like the "Other Cancellations", should just be outright removed as it has nothing to do with the actual topic), but it easily passes the WP:GNG.  Rorshacma (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - As someone who's done quite a bit of work on this article, it's a sprawling but reasonably well-sourced topic. I say sprawling because, although the core cancellations were the rural sitcoms at CBS in 1971, they spanned all the Big Three networks throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s (Lawrence Welk being the glaring example of a non-CBS example) and spanned other shows popular with rural audiences, not just the rural sitcoms—but not all sources are as broad in their definition. Something to keep in mind here is that a lot of other articles link to this one. (I have tried to pull sources already used in those articles to shore this one up.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2020 (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.