Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sharon Osbourne Show


 * 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 of the debate was Keep, if someone feels it's better as a redirect, they can change it to that as usual. - Bobet 12:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Sharon Osbourne Show
There is nothing on this page that isn't contained in Sharon Osbourne, and let's face it, a crappy talkshow that was cancelled after a single season is not noteworthy. dr.alf 09:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact Sharon hosted it is a claim to notability. Computerjoe 's talk 09:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Deletion? She's the Queen of ****in' darkness!  ...Seriously though, TV shows are notable no matter how bad they are (can I nominate CSI Miami for deletion?) and the host is notable as well.  Even if it doesn't have any more information at the moment a person entering this search term would probably like to get right to the meat of the information. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 10:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well, isn't every television show notable? Especially if it airs in a retard(ly big) country like the United States. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING  (Я)  10:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that kind of language needed? Andjam 12:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep while the show probably was awful, being "crappy" is not a deletion criterion. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As much as I would like the article deleted, I'd have to say Keep as it's a notable tv show, despite not many people highly rating the show. --Arnzy (whats up?)  14:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable TV show, a crappy talk show doesn't mean it should be deleted. --Ter e nce Ong 15:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sharon Osbourne, unless someone wants to take on the unenviable task of expand the article past a whisper. Other brief disasters, like The Chevy Chase Show currently redirect to the perpetrator since there's just not enough notable material to support an article on its own.  Kuru   talk  16:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Chevy Chase Show shouldn't redirect, either. Keep notable television shows. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 00:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sharon Osbourne. Tyrenius 18:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect per above. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sharon Osbourne. Capitalistroadster 23:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable, in that it was notably awful. Lankiveil 23:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Even though it sucked... It should be expanded, though. --Dakart 21:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Sharon Osbourne, without prejudice; if the article contained some substance then (all else being equal) I consider changing vote to keep, but in its current form it seems pointless. If kept, it should be marked as stub/expand. Paddles 15:24, 21 May 2006 (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.