Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Magic House


 * 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   no consensus. Scott Mac 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Magic House

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Subject appears to be non-notable children's tv show (1993-5). Article unreferenced. Can find no substantial coverage of this to show why it was notable. There are the books of the same name which appear to be more notable than the show. SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The lack of sources is a problem but I would argue that 55 episodes broadcast on one of the two main terrestrial channels makes the show notable. On a personal level it was required viewing for me as a lazy student! Keresaspa (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless someone can actually come up with some kind of source to expand the article it's just going to be an unreferenced single-sentence sub-stub, neither notable or verified. I'm not having any luck.. Someoneanother 22:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete A non-notable short-running children's television show in the 90s.Yousou (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Could somebody please address the issue of how a programme that aired across the ITV network can be non-notable as everybody here is claiming as I just can't see it. This article needs improved not deleted (hence why I have now tagged it for rescue as well as expanding it a bit). The books referred to by Christopher Connor could also be incorporated into the article. Keresaspa (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Some don't like thinking for themselves, and deciding what is notable and what is not, so unless you find two or more news results that specifically say its notable enough to talk about it, then they try to delete it.  D r e a m Focus  00:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The notability I was referring to is a guideline with criteria, not a feeling of whether something is 'worthy' or not. WP's content is or should be built on the back of reliable sources as specified by the verifiability policy. Without sufficient sources a subject cannot be brought up to standard and in many cases cannot be expanded due to issues without falling afoul of original research. Someoneanother 01:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable enough to be broadcast on a major television station for years, and notable because its characters were licensed for commercials by Trustee Savings Bank. I doubt many children's programs get coverage in the newspaper, nor do I feel the need to sort through the hordes of Google news results and try to find any.   D r e a m Focus  00:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions).    Snotty Wong   gab 23:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What a rude little tag to put up there. It brings more people here which will do a Google news search, visit the official website for information, potentially help improve the article, and offer additional opinions.   D r e a m Focus  00:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It also brings a lot of people here who are more apt to !vote "Keep". The instructions on WP:ARS clearly say that the deletion discussion should be notified when an article is tagged for rescue, and there should be a brief explanation for why it was tagged for rescue.  In the absence of these notifications and explanations, I believe the closing admin needs to be notified so that he/she can look out for a disproportionate quantity of Keep votes by ARS members, indicating that the votes might be skewed as a result of canvassing.    Snotty Wong   confess 22:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, no substantial coverage. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2010 (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.