Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Touch the Sun (TV series)


 * 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 acknowleding that the nom also withdrew it. Star  Mississippi  14:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Touch the Sun (TV series)

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

A bit ago I came across this page and found the sourcing on it potentially questionable. Between the Sources and External links sections, I see three different databases (MemorableTV, Australian Screen Online, and Oz Movies), an interview with one of the actors, a wikilink to the series' executive producer, and a couple other items, none of which I would considered reliable. There's also a long list of pages from the Australian Children's Television Foundation whose reliability I was unsure about, and since there's over a dozen of those I decided against touching the page due to my unfamiliarity. But just now I come back here and notice that the ACTF produced the series which I think makes all of those annual reports primary sources. If I've understood correctly, that means there's zero reliable sources on this page currently.

Now as I said, I am very unfamiliar with Australian television (let alone Australian anything; I am an American after all) and so I'm not entirely confident in the results of my BEFORE search, so please don't assume I've ruled out additional coverage here. This could easily be a case of "Sources exist but nobody's gathered them yet", and I just can't find them myself for whatever reason. But without that, the only thing I see for notability here is an International Emmy win in 1988. QuietHere (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television,  and Australia. QuietHere (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: Winning such a major award should be sufficient to demonstrate notability even on its own, but the nominator User:QuietHere seems to have completely missed the Reviews section of the article, which demonstrates notability beyond any reasonable doubt. Modernponderer (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, for how deep into the article it is and with the complete lack of footnotes, it's very missable. But you do make a fair point and I do feel a bit silly. I'm not familiar with any of those publications besides the Daily Telegraph so I'll leave it to other editors to tell just how reliable they are, but this may lead to a withdrawal soon enough. QuietHere (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the article needs considerable improvement, but the reviews section very clearly shows that sufficient sources exist. Whether or not they are yet incorporated into the article properly is irrelevant per NEXIST. matt91486 (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the multiple reliable sources referenced in the reviews section that include a number of Australian newspapers, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, with this many keep votes I feel silly leaving this about. Officially withdrawn. Thanks all. QuietHere (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Though I will leave off by requesting that some proper citations get added to that review section and/or it gets moved up in the page so it's not lost all the way at the bottom where anyone could miss it like I did. QuietHere (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2022 (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.