Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's End (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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  12:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

World's End (TV series)

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

Cannot find any evidence of notability, which it has been tagged for since 2018, with zero reviews found. Sending it here to see if anyone else can find something that would justify keeping this article, and if not, then it should be deleted. Donald D23  talk to me  22:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom.  Donald D23   talk to me  22:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete See below: Although (1) its plausible this entry is or may one day be of value to Wikipedians from the UK or fans of the show, and (2) the claims contained in the article are supported by reliable sources ...
 * ... the lack of coverage, both in-depth, and assessed collectively means that this entry doesn't meet SIGCOV requirements of GNG or an SNG. I have made reasonable WP:BEFORE searches yet none were found
 * Sadly, this is an instance where applying guidelines requires destruction of a knowledge source, irrespective of other considerations; including collateral damage to this website's wider mission and purpose Jack4576 (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what WP:IAR is for! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * On second thought, you're right Necrothesp. Keep on the basis of WP:IAR Jack4576 (talk) 15:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: Fails GNG and WP:RPRGM. Source in article does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth and BEFORE showed nothing that meets SIGCOV from IS RS. Keep vote admits that guidelines call for deletion, even after spam Keep vote.  // Timothy :: talk  00:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: I have found no SIGCOV and see no evidence that this meets the GNG. (Also, IMHO, a call to keep an article based on IAR is a concession that there aren't any legitimate grounds upon which to keep.)   Ravenswing      01:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Except IAR which is its own legitimate ground. Jack4576 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I found some references which I put on the article’s talk page — A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This article requires SIGCOV to determine notability. These sources (the ones you added to the talk page) do not demonstrate SIGCOV. The 1st contains several interview quotes and is extremely WP:ROUTINE; besides that, it hardly focuses on the series itself (instead listing multiple quotes) and is quite short. The 2nd source closely resembles this description, consisting almost entirely of quotes, besides the fact that it is very short and lacks in-depth description of the series. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 04:09, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Considered together, those two sources identified by A. B. amount to significant coverage existing for this subject. The Chronicle live article in particular discusses the subject with a reasonable amount of depth; describing the show's setting, film location, release date, plot, cast, and production. SIGCOV is arguably met here.
 * A subjective assessment, in any event. Jack4576 (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * SIGCOV is only determined individually. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 04:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, (you keep repeating this, yet have never provided any basis for that assertion)
 * and in any event, the ChronocleLive article alone would be enough. Jack4576 (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:ROUTINE isn't relevant as that's about notability of routine events, but the sources identified were from before the series appeared on television and consist mostly of quotes and I don't think there's enough there for an article, or another good reason to keep it as most of the content lacks sources and is possibly original research or (more likely) copied from somewhere without attribution. Peter James (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per my reasoning above and Peter James' analysis. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 15:07, 22 May 2023 (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.