Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Future Is Wild


 * 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. Consensus here being that cleanup and improvement, rather than deletion, is the way to go here. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  00:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The Future Is Wild

 * – ( View AfD View log )

If nobody has turned up any sources in almost a year, the topic is almost certainly not notable. See WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:OR. Chris (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Quality of the article notwithstanding, the series does look notable in terms of significant news coverage.
 * Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep — notable enough that I found out about it independently of Wikipedia. I’ll see if I can dig up some sources, although at this point I feel that a lack of sources in the article don’t at all warrant its deletion, only its tagging for lack of sources. Maybe it could be listed on cleanup or something? — Timwi (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep — Though the article content is rather thin, other than a very detailed description of the series' content, the series is notable in several countries as it's a joint production of several studios. I'll extract information about its production etc from Fish in trees and elephant-sized squid - the future as seen on TV. cm&#610;&#671;ee'&#964;a&#671;&#954;'ma&#953;&#671; 11:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm fine with keeping the article as long as sourced information can be added. If information from reliable sources is added, then I agree that it should not be deleted. Chris (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 17.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  20:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, good deal of coverage in secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources it does have back the article entirely. There is plenty to work with, this article can be imrpoved. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2011 (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.