Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Morals (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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Public Morals (TV Series)[edit]

Did this run for one show or one series? Sources differ. Er, no, make that the article differs, since there is only one source and it's not a reliable one anyway. Guy (Help!) 19:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails criteria for WP:NOTFILM. Keep (see comment below) - There may have been 12 episodes made, but that is not confirmed, And only episode appears to have aired, on October 30, 1996 and disappeared without any news comment. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am striking my previous delete. Given the addition of references provided by Zagalejo, the program passes the significant coverage criteria for notability. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand. Notability establisheed by the fact it aired on CBS and all series that air on national networks whether for 1 episode or 20 years are inherently notable. For just one random example, see The Will. The present article needs more information added, especially as the IMDb listing is substandard -- doesn't even indicate what network it was on. But it was on CBS so therefore there must be an article on this because all nationally broadcast TV series on major networks regardless of duration are notable. I'm at least going to add a bit of information and a couple of categories. 23skidoo (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand. I created the article, but I have only a passing interest in the subject, so I'm semi-objective :). Two things, though, seem to make it noteworthy to me. The first is, as 23skidoo pointed out, it did air on a major network, if only for one episode. The second is that it only aired for one episode. Given the labor involved in moving a show to air, and the costs involved for a network, it is rare for a show to actually make it to air only to fail so quickly. Squalk25 (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it should be acknowledged that Squalk25 has now added two additional sources to the article: one is TV Guide and the other is the New York Times; both qualify as non-trivial third-party sources, I would think. 23skidoo (talk) 18:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All primetime network TV series are notable, period. Whether it ran for 1 or 100 episodes doesn't matter, and the show was controversial before it even came to the air. Nate • (chatter) 05:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily notable enough. It might have been better to request help from a Wikiproject before taking this to AFD. There are several newspaper articles specifically about the series available on ProQuest:

Tom Shales. "'Morals' not so much a comedy as a crime". San Diego Union-Tribune. November 7, 1996. E3.
Allan Johnson. "Boorish Bochco: Stereotypical 'Public Morals' is nothing to laugh at". Chicago Tribune. November 6, 1996. 3.
"CBS cancels 'Public Morals' after 1 episode". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. November 6, 1996. D4.
"True-blue actor has little time to mourn 'Morals'". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. December 1 1996. E2.

I'll try to add some of those to the article later. Zagalejo^^^ 05:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks alright (now). Aired on a major network (it doesnt really matter for how long), so along with the sources Zagalejo mentioned, notability is not that much of a concern (anymore). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability now established per the usual precedent. Wily D 15:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.