Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncle Max (2nd nomination)


 * 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. John254 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Uncle Max
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Per this PROD tag, which was removed by someone who commented that the fact that the article was entirely original research was not "a valid reason for deletion" since "there are sources to back it up". Interestingly, they didn't add any. Also, take a peep at the first nomination, which resulted in Delete. --Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. First deletion was for an article on a completely different topic (a minor character from The Lion King). This article is under-referenced, but appears to cover a notable topic - a TV show which has been broadcast on BBC. Some trivial searching within Wikipedia turned up this article which is a perfectly good source (I've copied over the ref). Zetawoof(&zeta;) 10:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. What on earth? Uncle Max is a fairly well-known CITV, now BBC, childrens' programme starring the notable actor David Schneider - we never delete articles about television series, even if they're terrible. Yes, it perhaps needs a few more references, but there is IMDb there, and as the above user comments there are plenty of "real world" references for it. The nominator's addition of a completely unrelated AFD nomination for a Lion King character suggests that they haven't researched this nomination thoroughly enough, or even read it - please be more careful in future. Bob talk 11:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment.svg|15px]] Comment - I notice you removed the prod-tag without improving the article, however... furthermore, IMDB is not a reliable source. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - there have been some more sources added now from The Times etc, which seem to rectify the 'original research' criticism of the nomination. Bob talk 13:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems to be a notable enough TV program. matt91486 (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment.svg|15px]] Comment - the notability guideline goes further, though: the article must assert its notability, with reliable third-party sources, and it doesn't appear to do so very well at the moment. It also contains unsourced material. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 18:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Containing some unsourced material is not grounds for article deletion. The Times reference seems like it should be substantial enough to make the article verifiable, and that's what's necessary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt91486 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable, sourcable, and sources have been added since the nomination. More work could doubtless be done, but this is not a candidate for deletion. --Sturm 08:55, 11 February 2008 (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.