Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trapped! (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Trapped! (TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unreferenced article on a TV series of little notability, the article's history shows ongoing problems with content insertion and removal, nonetheless a lot of the current content is garbage (list of the contestants, in-depth analysis of the rounds etc.) this article is one of the worst I've come across. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:18pm • 12:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * What is the deletion policy basis of this AfD? Looking at the history there are no revert wars just iterative edits with poor summary word choice. Notability can be established. References can be added. So I'm saying keep and allow the article to be improved. Paulzag (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Paulzag (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * You can, read the AfD tag. If you can improve it so that it has verifiable independent reliable sources, then by all means go ahead, no one's stopping you. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 4:51pm • 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I did read the AfD tag which is why I asked you to state the policy basis.
 * Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed - no attempt made
 * If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. - no attempt made.
 * So it seems the correct tag is RefImprove not AfD Paulzag (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Nominating an article about a show that has been on the UK's leading television channel for years is absurd. The current state of the article may reflect badly on wikipedia, but is no reason to delete. Alex Middleton (talk) 23:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes it notable but not verifiable. There are plenty of people who have acted on BBC TV shows who've had their articles deleted, see Articles for deletion/Joseph Slack, then there are other BBC TV shows which have had their articles deleted and all because they lack reliable sources. Meeting a notability guideline, as stated in said guidelines, doesn't merit the article's inclusion on Wikipedia, there needs to be encyclopedic content and independent, verifiable, reliable sources. — James (Talk • Contribs) • 6:25pm • 08:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But you originally claimed it had little notability. Now you're focusing on verifiability. What happened to other BBC TV actor's pages isn't relevant. This is about the show's page. The article should be fixed, not deleted. The correct RefImprove tag should be added to it. Paulzag (talk) 04:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is horribly bloated and unreferenced at the moment, but a TV series which has already run four seasons should have no problem with verifiability. I've just added a reference now. With any luck, an editor with better knowledge than I about the series will come along at some point and get rid of all the trivial and otherwise inappropriate content. Either way, the page's problems can be dealt with without deleting it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2011 (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.