Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of McGee and Me


 * 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 (snow) keep. – sgeureka t•c 07:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The Adventures of McGee and Me

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

Delete: no reliable third party coverage (either in the article or readily ascertainable from -links), thus no WP:Notability. This TV show had a fairly short run (13 episodes, of which only 12 are listed), so an 'inherent notability' claim would be a stretch. Article is (and from comment on talk from June last year, has long been) simply a mix of boilerplate information (characters, episodes, etc) sourced to its publisher & broadcaster, and WP:OR. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep notable TV/video series. The book "Shaking the world for Jesus" (ISBN 0226326799) claims that the series had sold 15 million [VHS video] copies by 1996.  It's significant enough to have had sequel/spinoff series, a book series, and is still aired on TV two decades after its debut.  A relatively small number of episodes doesn't necessarily translate to non-notability. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as it is a TV/video series, so it definitely deserves more than a redirect to the creator's page. As well, with McGee having a separate page, it could benefit from the TV/video template and info boxes, something that it could not have if it was part of the creator's article. GoldDragon (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Certainly this article has problem, however I've updated it with a couple reviews and references to help establish notability. The series is too old for google new hits to provide many publicly accessible URLs. I was able to login to my public library website and do a NewsBank search to find two of the refs I added, hence no public URL to cite. The nominator of this AfD may have had trouble finding coverage because very few reliable sources use the title this article currently uses. The series seems to be mostly referred to as McGee and Me! and the image in the article, as well as the official website, should help demonstrate that that appears to be the official usage. As such, I suggest we move this article to McGee and Me! at the conclusion of this AfD. Sarilox (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix the article name, despite its really really really bad article, it is a television series, it aired on a national network and plenty of sources out there under the correct name (as noted by Sarilox). Meets WP:N. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 19:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is covered by Terrace in his 2009 Encyclopedia of Television Shows.  And I too agree with Sarilox (talk) that the page should be moved to the (correct) title of McGee and Me. JimVC3 (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep certainly trivial, but well within out inclusion standard. Eusebeus (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep per notability asserted and found per WP:AFTER  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 05:19, 11 April 2009 (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.