Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three's Company (1989)


 * 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   delete. While a reasonable argument can be made that a national television program that ran for multiple series should be notable; searches by multiple participants have failed to provide adequate sources to satisfy WP:N. Consensus therefore seems to be that this article is insufficiently sourceable at this time. ~ mazca  talk 18:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Three's Company (1989)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod; I believe this fails WP:GNG because of a lack of reliable sources available for the TV show. I tried to do a Google search but the only thing I could get were for the early 80's sitcom. Tavix | Talk  18:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Furthermore, as I noted above this "article" is actually three mini-articles (about three unrelated programs); each mini-article is either one sentence or two short sentences. At WP:1S and WP:2S, it says, "All articles that are only one or two sentences long should be either expanded or deleted. Wikipedia decision-makers are urged to make one sentence "articles" a speedy deletion category as there is no purpose for them." [emphasis retained from original] Please pardon my enthusiasm for what seems a reasonable idea. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 18:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong speedy delete per Notability_(media), which says, "a national television program can be non-notable if it got cancelled too quickly to have garnered any real media coverage". This particular article is actually about three different programs in China, each of which lasted a single season (their so-called "popularity" notwithstanding).--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: "speedy" doesn't apply as it doesn't meet any of the WP:CSD criteria. Tavix | Talk  19:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe "speedy" would apply if the originator sees the light and requests deletion, per WP:CSD. If one (such as myself) conscientiously believes that should happen, should one not encourage it?


 * Delete per AuthorityTam, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I deprodded the article. It was prodded on the basis of "Fails WP:GNG due to the lack of English language reliable sources" This is a totally incorrect reason, as it is not necessary to have English language sources at all.  any language is good, and there are certainly enough people here who can evaluate a Chinese language source, though I am not one  of them. There was what appeared to be such a source (if there had not been, i would have simply changed the reason to "lack of reliable sources"--as the nom did here. I see two or three articles a day being nominated for   speedy or prod on the basis of the sources not being in English. I certainly intend to decline all such deletions. DGG (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I used English to be more specific because I can confirm I no of no English language sources, however I can't read chinese so I can't do the same for that language. Simply saying "No such sources exist" may or may not be true depending if you can understand Chinese or not. I understand where your coming from and should have worded it differently, but the idea that there isn't any reliable sources (that I can read) still stands. Tavix | Talk  03:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind non-English sources, but the only ones I've seen are silly websites and trivia websites rather than substantive journals or scholarly works.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't understand why AuthorityTam believes it "got canceled too quickly to attract attention." The article asserts in ran for 30 episodes and then had a 40 episode spin-off.  While, I can't confirm this fact, if it is true there are almost certainly Chinese language sources to establish notability.
 * A very rough translation of the one source in the article suggests that the "unrelated" 2001 show by the same name did indeed run for the claimed 46 episodes. (The article is about the first episode, but it seems to link to plot summaries of 45 additional episodes.)
 * The Chinese title of the the series (not surprisingly given the generic name of the show) returns tons and tons of results, which makes it extremely difficult for someone who can't read Chinese to find anything useful. What we need is someone who can read Chinese to figure out if there are sources or not.  --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NME, AuthorityTam believes it "got canceled too quickly to attract attention" because six weeks is "quickly". The program aired from May 22 to July 3, 1989: six weeks. The second program did not return the same actors or the same name, which doesn't exactly argue for the first program's "notability"; the second program lasted from June 21 to August 15, 1990: eight weeks. By what standard is six weeks or eight weeks anything but "canceled quickly"? I'd guess the originating editor saw that his article was insubstantial and made a desperate attempt to beef it up with a third program from left field.
 * Well, if true that is highly bizarre. A sitcom that airs daily?  Weird! --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions.  -- ThaddeusB (talk) 03:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  -- ThaddeusB (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment to previously stated Delete. Per WP:NOR, the very title of this article is troublesome. The article author never sources his English translation of the program's title (that is, the article title). Automatic translation engines have generated nothing even remotely similar to the article title chosen by the originating editor. Ironically, engines seem to have done what seems a better job! The first program, where the parents hope to find wives for their sons, has been automatically translated as "Lining up three wives". The second program, where the parents try to convince three daughters-in-law to get pregnant, has been automatically translated as "Three wives line up". Very clever, and more evidence that this author didn't/doesn't have a good sense of his subject.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment on the title of that sitcom: the American sitcom Three's Company (1977-1984) was translated into Chinese as San ren xing 三人行 when it came out, probably in Taiwan in the 1980s. The title was funny because it alluded to a well-known passage in the Analects of Confucius that said "when three people are walking together, I am sure to find a teacher among them" (三人行必有我师焉). The series we're discussing aired in 1989 and was called Zhuiqi san ren xing 追妻三人行, which means "Three's Company in Finding a Wife" (clearly an allusion to the American sitcom) or "Three people [= brothers] walking together looking for wives." Anyway I doubt there is an official translation for that 1989 sitcom. A Google search for "Three's Company" and "追妻三人行" gives only five results. One of them is the wiki we're discussing, the other four are pages that mention 追妻三人行 AND the original American sitcom side by side. This means "Three's Company" is just the translation proposed by a Wikipedia editor. This means AuthorityTam is right that the translation sounds dubious, and "Three's Company (1989)" probably will probably not satisfy the WP: TITLE requirement even if the article is fleshed out. Madalibi (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment on Chinese sitcoms in general. All the Chinese sitcoms I know air everyday, and most of them even air two episodes a day. My Chinese friends who watch American series on Hong Kong television find it really weird that they have to wait an entire week for the next episode! In other words, the show we're discussing was not "cancelled": it just aired all its episodes in six weeks, like all other Chinese TV series do, so I don't think this should be a factor in the AfD's decision. Otherwise I'm not familiar enough with notability requirements for TV series to judge whether this wiki should be deleted, and I don't have time to look for reliable sources. I say let the creator of the article PROVE IT! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a problem in terminology here, I think, because most Chinese "sitcoms" are closer to what Westerners (or at least Americans) would call a "soap opera", and Western soap operas do run every day, although usually for years on end, not just 6 weeks.--Aervanath (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I can read some Chinese, and looking through the webpages I got from a Google search only provided one hit in an actual newspaper, and that was promotional material. The other sources I could find were all copies of the channel's press release.  So I don't think these are particularly notable in China or Taiwan, either. (If someone wants to point me towards some sources which look reliable, I'll be happy to re-evaluate my opinion.) Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: The creator was not notified of this request. I have remedied this.--Aervanath (talk) 07:00, 26 June 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.