Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.S. 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   Snowball keep. (Bold non-admin closure) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.S. TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I've declined a Prod in which it mentionned as reason:

Community census (only about 2-4 votes/comments can be found at: Talk:Whose Line Is It Anyway? and Talk:Whose Line Is It Anyway?. Looking for a larger pool of voters. 

I've send it at AFD instead for more discussion whether it should be deleted or kept as its own entry. Remain neutral on this. JForget 23:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Expand and Keep - I agree that info about the US series should be split from the much larger existing article that combines UK and US series. This new US article seems lightweight now simply because the split of existing content is incomplete. Then some more sources, etc. can be found. Give this article a chance to develop. I will help out where/when I can. Also, since this US series was on a major network (ABC) for several years, I am pretty sure this helps with the notability question. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per DOOMSDAYERS.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 00:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect back in [ struck - a consensus for splitting is a completely reasonable outcome. Nobody was claiming the show was non-notable! However, the earlier discussions (linked in the nom, explained below, read by some...) were also filled with crossed-wires communication! Plus the editor who initially prod'd it hasn't commented here. So it goes. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC) ]. The shows are so similar/overlapping that most of the differences are best explained by comparing them to each other. Separate articles would require duplicating the majority of the content at each. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Two different shows should have two different articles. That the both have the (almost) same name is irrelevant. Merging would be like merging the american version of The Office, with the British version. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep No doubt about notability, and it differs enough from the Briish series that it deserves its own article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Forum shopping when the issue is not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The U.S. program had a run on a major U.S. television network (ABC), and reliable sources about this U.S. program (such as Brooks and Marsh (2007) The Complete Directory to Network and Cable TV Shows, one of two Holy Bibles of TV programs) barely even mention the British version connection (two sentences). While the connection should be mentioned, a comparison-between-the-two type article (which is what a merged version would be) isn't warranted, and there are more than enough sources for a major U.S. TV network's program, which was aired by 200 affiliates across the U.S., to have its own article. Note that I wouldn't support the existence of a separate article if the content of the U.S. and British version was the same; there could just be a mention of a U.S. transmission of a British production, such as the one at The_Adventures_of_William_Tell. This is not the case here: it was U.S.-produced. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This television series aired on a major American television network for 8 seasons and 220 episodes. In the talk page for the article, the only reason given for deletion was that its creation was the only contribution of a new editor (the instigator of the discussion should assume good faith there). Although I'd hate to go into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS territory here, this is one of the exceptions that proves the rule: we do indeed have articles on other American remakes of British television series, giving this article for this television show a reason to exist. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 05:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Definitely no issue here; two separate series, two separate nations, two separate networks, each with long runs. I propose that a cue should be taken from local television station articles, where one station's news team is also seen on another local station in the same market and the minor station is referred to look at staff details in the major station; describe some of the unique American skits in this article, and then for skits shared by the shows a hatnote for See WLIIT UK (paraphrasing title for simplicity) should suffice.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 07:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowball Keep A long-running, nationally broadcast U.S. television show is not considered notable? Warrah (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The show is completely solidly notable. Nobody is claiming the show isn't notable. We're (I'm) just saying it is so-closely-related to the UK version, that is clearer to explain the two in juxtaposition to each other. Just as it has been for the last 8 years!
 * (Or to use the example that keeps getting used: if The Office (US) used the same actors and scripts as The Office (UK), they would be most easily/clearly written about in a single location. Just as multiple vehicles that are independently notable, have been written about in a single location at Mini.) But noone seems to be understanding that mergist perspective, and instead are using Speedy keep incorrectly.
 * As long as something good comes out of the new-stub, then I'm not going to worry about it. But this new article still doesn't even mention the UK version that it sprang from, which doesn't bode well. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So... such information could be included in a "history" or "background" section through the course of regular editiong.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If Quiddity thinks the new US article should mention the UK version, then just go ahead and add it to the article. Many of Quiddity's arguments are based on what the US article is now, not on what it could be. Like I said in my original vote way up above, the new US article needs expansion, and there seems to be plenty of interest in doing so. Give it time. Wikipedia isn't a real-time editable resource for nothing. What you see or don't see right this minute won't be that way forever. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 20:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as the US version has decidely and incontrovertable found its own independent notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but not speedy keep due to Quiddity's merge !vote. As Schmidt said, independent notability exists.  Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 23:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Ran on a major American network for 8 seasons, quite an accomplishment when the average run for a network show is probably 4. Sources show notability. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Speedy keep does apply here because what other arguments are there for merging? I don't know of any.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 01:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * With my interpretation of speedy keep (although not necessarily correct), User:Quiddity presented an argument for merging (above) with the rationale that the topics are "so similar/overlapping that most of the differences are best explained by comparing them" and so allowing this discussion its full turn might be preferable. Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment See the problem lies in the fact that if we merge and that section becomes too big, we would have to split it up anyways. So what's the point?  Leave it as is.   Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 04:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Why was this nominated anyway? Ya think we merge the two articles about The Office as well?  WP:SNOW on this one.  Mandsford (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity, here's the timeline: For 8 years we had a single article. The original discussion of a possible future split for this single article was in December 2009, with a couple of extra responses from 10-16 February 2010. Then on 17 February 2010 this new article was created. Then on 7 March this discussion began, about whether a split was really wanted, because it didn't look like the new article was likely to grow anytime soon. At that time, we had 3 editors supporting a split (plus User talk:PF17), and 3 editors against a split. Then, on 26 March, presumably looking to get more input (as his prod summary said "Looking for a larger pool of voters.") Guy M prod'd it, which wasn't an appropriate method to get more feedback, and so the uninvolved admin JForget brought it here. Hopefully that at least clears up how we arrived at this point. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Update - I am doing the split in earnest today, negating many of the arguments in favor of deletion. This split involves pretty major changes to both the UK and US series articles. While Speedy Keep may or may not present a procedural problem, let's consider snowball keep instead. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 18:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with snowball keep. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment With the current majority of the revisions in the last day or two by DOOMSDAYER, the article has taken shape nicely.  Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep all TV shows are notable. Dew Kane (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * snowball keep per Dew. I think AFDs, which can be combative, should always be the very, very last resort. Okip   03:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep notable long running show, I cannot even believe this is being nominated.Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Different shows, different articles.  D r e a m Focus  08:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please Note - this continues to be a confusing and misleading AfD discussion. When the AfD was first proposed, the article was much less extensive than it is now, and in the last few days we have expanded it greatly. (Admittedly, we did so because of this very same discussion.) Also, the AfD was a procedural gimmick to force some sort of result in a long-running discussion about splitting content from the original article about the UK series. There was never really a question of whether the US series is notable, but its article was pretty anemic before this whole discussion started. In fact, this AfD is now pretty meaningless due to subsequent events. It's probably only still open because the admin who is running it has a notice on his page that he is only available on weekends. D OOMSDAYER 520  (Talk|Contribs) 14:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll boldly close it, to prevent further confusion, given that noone is still (vocally) supporting a re-merge. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2010 (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.