Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gublins (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. ✗plicit 03:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Gublins (TV series)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage from reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:NTV. – DarkGlow • 14:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 14:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Gublins did exist: there are obituaries for its creator that mention him eg the Guardian, the standard and The Herald. There is an example on Youtube here. Books were published such as here. I'm just very surprised that there isn't more give how cherished Gordon Murray (puppeteer)'s other creations like Trumpton are. It feels like there must be reliable sources for this somewhere. But I can't find them. OsFish (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Improve I think this piece should remain and not be deleted, but more citations are definitely needed. I can't seem to find many sources anywhere though but as @OsFish said, they must exist somewhere.

LukeWWF (talk) 12:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This subject doesn't seem to have significant coverage anywhere, and WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST is not a valid argument. Avilich (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm crossing out my comment in light of the expansion by OsFish. Avilich (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added sources and expanded details on the series. I kept stumbling upon sources using various search configurations. There is also, I believe, material in at least one book ("Into the Box of Delights: The History of Children's Television") by Anna Home but I can't access it. It's never going to be a huge article, but I think there is already enough here so far. OsFish (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Addtional Comment I think it may be helpful to go over what WP:NTV says to show why I think it's now a clear keep: Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. BBC1 Saturday morning was national kids primetime when there were only 3 channels available; there will have been millions of viewers. the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone . In addition to the RS obituaries of the creator and the BFI site, the Big Cartoon DataBase is considered a good reliable source by the Reference and User Services Association. (I have also cited toonhound which is a database run by a named individual and which has been used as a source in other wiki articles, although I can find no commentary on it on WP:RSN.) OsFish (talk) 06:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is less online coverage of this than I would perhaps expect, which I think explains some of the concerns, but it is clear that this was a significant TV series and the expanded article suggests to me that notability criteria have been met. Dunarc (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2021 (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.