Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Outlaws (2004 TV series)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Keep. Someone should resubmit this though. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Outlaws (2004 TV series)


This draft was declined for having no sources, and still has no sources. Nominating for deletion because the submitter doesn't appear to be responding to the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2015 (UTC) To the extent it might help, I did some general cleanup on it (wikification, style, formatting, lead tweaks). Needs categorization, infobox (optional), proper citations (two are just copy-pasted URLs), inline citations if possible, and review sources actually used, e.g. to provide a critical reception section. (I've mostly sworn off editing pop-culture articles, so I've done about as much as I'm willing.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hold on: It does in fact cite a number of sources, including reviews; probably enough to establish notability, though probably not enough for all of the details in the article draft. The problem is that they're general references piled up at the bottom of the page as "External links" instead of being cited in a references section and preferably used per WP:CITE as inline citations.  But WP:V doesn't strictly require that; information has to be verif not verifi, if it's not controversial.  Thus, this seems salvageable. The weakness of the article appears to be due to new-editor unfamiliarity with exactly how to go about all this, not a desire to promote something trivial that should not have an article here. (Any TV series that ran a full broadcast season, on a major network like the BBC, in a major market like the UK, is pretty much presumptively notable).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:47, 29 November 2015 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.