Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas & Friends (series 1)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thomas & Friends (series 1)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I am nominating 24 individual lists of Thomas and Friends television series because WP:BEFORE shows no indication of significant, lasting coverage in independent, reliable sources. All are mostly or entirely unsourced and containing nothing but WP:CRUFT. I would suggest redirecting them all to Thomas & Friends per WP:ATD-R and WP:NOPAGE, as all the necessary information is already at List of Thomas & Friends episodes.



&#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * there is already a list of all the episodes at List of Thomas & Friends episodes; while the series as a whole can be said to be of "large and lasting cultural significance", I would request sources showing that the same can be said of the individual series. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television,  and Entertainment. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep seems like a valid split from the main article, which would become far too long if all of these were merged into it. Garuda3 (talk) 08:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, these series are of large and lasting cultural significance. I appreciate that there's a case for sticking to the main article, but I think it's reasonable that readers might want a list of titles and very brief plot summaries, and given the sheer number of episodes produced, Garuda3's absolutely right: it'd make the main article far too long. So this split makes sense. Elemimele (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, as explained above. Granted, sourcing should be added.  We really should be making an effort to keep articles about culturally significant subjects such as this. — Maile  (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep: I forget what the policy is, but this kind of season episode guide split is extremely common for Wikipedia coverage; see Friends (season 10) and Bonanza (season 5) for random examples. This is not an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, it's just a recognition of a very common pattern. I would be interested to know why the nominator thinks that this television show doesn't deserve a season-by-season breakout. WP:CRUFT is usually a synonym for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Toughpigs (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , please provide reliable sources with significant coverage, showing the notablity of each individual series. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't need coverage of each individual series to split out lists into their own pages; it just needs to be long enough that merging it all into the series page would be unwieldy. There are a number of RS citations talking about individual episodes on the Thomas & Friends article page, for example see "Thomas the Imperialist Tank Engine" (Slate, 2011) and "The Repressive, Authoritarian Soul of Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends" (New York Times, 2017). Toughpigs (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the series as a whole is notable; that is not the issue here . We already have a list of all the episodes at List of Thomas & Friends episodes, which I don't believe is "unwieldy". Why are the individual series notable enought to have individual articles? I have yet to see significant coverage of any individual series. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep,This is common on Wikipedia. Extreme Makeover Home Edition, iCarly, & Phineas and Ferb to name a few shows. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a viable argument . What independent, reliable sources provide significant coverage of individual T&F series? &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * While some of the information can be deleted like all the trivia, it would still require a split as the single age would be far too long. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * List of Thomas & Friends episodes exists without being "far too long" . &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Longstanding precedent is that most notable television series get per-season lists, with only those which have substantially individually notable episodes covered in per-episode articles: GoT, Sopranos, The Simpsons. I think we're agreed that Thomas and Friends isn't in that latter group. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have still yet to see even one source that could be used to argue that any individual series of T&F is notable. Not even one. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is common for a show as notable and long-lasting as Thomas & Friends (which has amassed DVDs, language adaptations for various global markets, and a merchandise empire) to receive a per-season list, saving space on the TV show page. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment This bundled nomination was set up incorrectly so that any closure will be time-consuming to do. I've asked for the nominator to correct this acording to instructions at WP:AFD. Unfortunately, this is not uncommon as editors don't seem to want to read the actual instructions there for bundled nominations. I don't think it is worth relisting this discussion but I'm unwilling to take this closure on myself and I'm adding this comment for any future closer to see. Liz Read! Talk! 06:39, 14 March 2024 (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.