Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dog and Duck (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. postdlf (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dog and Duck (TV series)[edit]

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

PROD removed by Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) in an attempt to 'overwrite' the topic, I have reverted. There is no evidence of notability here, and it fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Insert Comment, this was originally listed at Dog and Duck. It was subsequently moved to Dog and Duck (TV series). I've tried to fix the links. older ≠ wiser 12:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect the article content tagged for AFD may not meet notability guidelines but that version was recreated by the nominator. This version looks like notability is established and if so it should not be deleted on irrelevant grounds. Generally, it is not becoming to replace notable content with non-notable and then issue an AFD submission. However, in this case I can understand that the newly created content was an unnecessary irritation and it would have been better created at a disambiguated title. When I was a lad there were all sorts of pubs called Dog and Duck and maybe some more of them are notable. Thincat (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat:, you have got that all wrong I'm afraid. The original article, created in June 2009, was about a children's TV show. The version I PRODded was about a children's TV show. Colonel Warden then attempted to overwrite which is a big no-no. I reverted. If Colonel Warden believed the idea of a Dog and Duck (tavern) article was notable then he should have created a new article, not attempt to overwrite an existing article on a different topic that had the same name. That is basic stuff. Giant Snowman 09:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel that reverting Colonel Warden's over-write was the correct thing to do and, since the PROD had effectively been turned down, bringing the article to AfD seems reasonable. Dricherby (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree with the facts GiantSnowman states and I don't think I said anything to the contrary. Is there a policy or guideline that non-notable content (as perceived by ~~one editor~~ two editors) should not be replaced with (intended) notable content if that involves changing the underlying topic? It is certainly the case that articles at AFD may be improved and the reason I have not restored Warden's material is that a reversion might seem disruptive. Somehow or other Warden's version needs to be restored or discussed for possible deletion on its own merits. Thincat (talk) 09:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"that version was recreated by the nominator [...] Generally, it is not becoming to replace notable content with non-notable and then issue an AFD submission" implies I have done something wrong/underhand. Giant Snowman 09:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
and to answer your question, no, I am not aware of any related guidelines, perhaps we could write an essay at Wikipedia:Overwriting articles or similar? Giant Snowman 09:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: I'm sorry I may have given a wrong impression. I do think that generally it is not a good thing to do. But in this case what Warden did was not good at all so you were in a bind not of your own making. Thincat (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat:, I'm not sure whether it's your wording or your implication, but one of them is well-off. The comment I quoted above (" it is not becoming to replace notable content with non-notable and then issue an AFD submission") implies, to me, that you thought I had taken an article on a notable subject, over-written it with a non-notable one, and then taken to AFD. That is simply not the case. Giant Snowman 10:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shall apologise again. I still think what I said, if read carefully, was appropriate, partial quoting of it is not so helpful. However, I realise that I gave a wrong impression to you and so I now understand that other people might also get a wrong impression. When they read this their minds will be at rest. Thincat (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion. Copying right now is not best practice. I enquired on a related point here. If the TV version gets deleted, the deleting Admin could (should) restore Warden's version.[1] If the TV version is kept Warden's version can anyway be copied and the relevant attribution tags put on the talk pages. Either way, anyone can subsequently nominate the tavern for AFD. Thincat (talk) 10:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I understand it, what happened here was that a prod was placed upon an article about a children's TV show. This prod stated, "If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. So, that's what I did. I didn't find much about the TV show but I found plenty of good sources about a notable and historic tavern in London. I set to work and started by transforming it into a stub supported by three good sources. This is valid content which is now in the history of the article and I can't see any good, policy-based reason to delete this. I shall continue to work upon this notable topic, which has good promise as a DYK. Please withdraw this AFD as it seems rather silly and contrary to WP:BURO. We're here to build an enyclopedia, not to have pointless discussions about a version of the topic that nobody wants. Warden (talk) 10:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article on a TV show has been nominated for PROD, and has now been nominated for AFD. Please comment on that article. Giant Snowman 10:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion function removes the entire edit history from article space, not just the current version. There is valid content there and I want it back. That content belongs under this title, because we do not disambiguate unnecessarily and there is no competing, notable topic with this title. Warden (talk) 11:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-create it at Dog and Duck (tavern), and then move it if/when th article is deleted (which won't happen if editors such as yourself make POINTy 'keep' !votes. Giant Snowman 11:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're one engaging in pointy behaviour here. When you put a prod on an article, you're saying that you don't care for it. Coming back to revert its content is contradictory. If you'd just stayed out of this, then I would have gone on to expand the article about the tavern and the project would have benefited without any fuss. The only reason I didn't do this right away was that development may require a library visit and it was late and time for bed. Now we have this absurd AFD which is your doing, not mine. Warden (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, this is very simple. The article was started about a TV show, the editing history is about a TV show, my PROD was on an TV show, my AFD is on a TV show. You should not have attempted to hijack one topic by this name for another you thought was more worthwhile. We can have two articles by the same name y'know, we even have guidelines on the mater. Giant Snowman 11:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A prod explicitly gives one carte blanche to do what one likes with the topic to make it viable. You're trying to hold onto the non-viable TV material just so you can delete it again. What is the point of that? Warden (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you changed the topic! Giant Snowman 11:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tavern seems to be the primary topic for this title - the only one worth writing about. Please revert to that version, withdraw the AFD and then we're done. Do you really want seven days of this? Warden (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're not "done", because you'll simply try to over-write again. What evidence do you have that the tavern is the primary topic? Giant Snowman 12:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can find many good sources for the tavern but not for rival users of this title. It seems to have been quite an institution, like Dirty Dick's. I have some experience in working on articles of this sort - see De Hems, for example. Warden (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Giant Snowman 12:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did — you reverted me. Warden (talk) 13:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted you over-writing an article about a TV show. I did not prevent you in any way from creating a new article about a pub. Giant Snowman 13:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion shows that there is no consensus for replacing the TV show article with a pub article. So please don't do that. Can we now move on and discuss the notability of the TV show? Dricherby (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus seems to be that the TV show is not notable so we should not cling to it. I'm here to defend the content I created about the tavern which would be destroyed if the page in question is deleted. That is certainly notable and I shall be doing further research and expansion accordingly. Warden (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting that consensus from? The AFD has been open for six hours, with only one !vote - you, wanting to keep the article. Mixed messages much? Giant Snowman 13:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both Blofeld and myself have searched for sources about the TV show and didn't find any worth considering. There doesn't seem to be anyone with a good word to say about the TV show. Warden (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, please remember to assume good faith and not accuse other editors of being "rather silly". To address the issue of the pub stub, there are several pubs called the Dog and Duck both inside (Crawley, Highmoor, Mansfield, Shadlow, Soho, Torquay, Wellingborough, Wokingham, ...), and outside the UK (Austin, Texas). As such, it doesn't seem appropriate for an article about a particular, now-closed pub of that name to appear at just Dog and Duck. Dricherby (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, but there could be a claim made (as I think CW is) that one historical pub by this name was notable, for whatever reason. Giant Snowman 12:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CITV series is mainstream TV and I certainly think a 195 episode series on CITV would probably be notable. However I can't seem to find any decent sources for it, nothing in google books. Ugly list too and needs a lot of work. Unless somebody can find some decent sources I'd delete. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion A technical solution for those who are determined to delete something might be to use revision deletion to delete the versions which relate to the non-notable TV-show but leaving the version with the stub about the tavern, which then would be the basis for development of the primary topic. Warden (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A gracious compromise Colonel, always a shame to see others work deleted, but sometimes sacrifices have to be made. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone has swooped by and created Dog and Duck (pub) with the colonel's content but probably with inadequate attribution. I have tried to remedy this at Talk:Dog and Duck (pub). If not already, I think this should become the primary topic and then we'll lose the inelegant "pub". Thincat (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC) PS I now see this happened very shortly after this AFD nomination this morning. Thincat (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A worthwhile attempt at a compromise, but not an ideal solution, as if this article is deleted, the link used to credit the original author will no longer be valid. Better to keep this article, and maybe re scope the new one. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's a copyright violation contrary to WP:CUTPASTE. The user who did this previously edited an article about prime numbers, concerning Polignac's conjecture. This might be a sock-puppet of a mathematical editor who has recently been in conflict with GiantSnowman. Or it could be a joe job. The plot thickens... Warden (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and restore to the Colonel's version. GiantSnowman has a valid position, its a well accepted tactic to save an article from destruction by a rewrite, but must admit I've not before seen such a bold change of scope. That said, nothing gained by destroying the article, and the Colonel's version is undoubtedly notable. As for the point about there being other Dog & Duck pubs, if someone creates an article which consensus deems is more notable, a renamed to something like Dog and Duck (St George's Fields) would be trivial. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about the CITV article not the pub. If that gets deleted then the pub can be moved back to Dog and Duck. Quite rightly, Giant Snowman is questioning the CITV programme and he has a point, I can't find any sources despite my feeling that a long running CITV series would probably be notable.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're obviously talking about both. The deletion discussion is for use of the delete function to delete the page of this title and its history. When I find time to actually work on the topic, rather than this discussion, I shall be expanding my draft here to show the potential of the topic. Working from this version is important for reasons of precedence as it affects DYK, which requires specific evidence of edits made at particular times, per the rules of that project. Warden (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I dug up some sources. Not great, but there is some snippet-view discussion in books, and a number of casual mentions in short bios of people involved in the production. A show that ran to so many episodes was bound to be noted. Then it can be moved to "Dog and Duck (TV show)" and this title made into a disambig. There are various pubs, some now closed but notable in their day. "In St George's Fields, which faced the Radcliffe's home on China Terrace, the famous Dog and Duck tavern was demolished in 1811 to make way for the New Bethlehem Hospital." Aymatth2 (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Go for it on the historic tavern as Dog and Duck (tavern), but keep also the piece on the TV show. In practice network TV shows at AfD are invariably kept, because there are TV critics writing and previews published about episodes all the time. The cut-and-paste episode list needs to go as a copyvio, I'm actually gonna nuke that now. But keep under the policy of WP:IAR as a presumed pass of GNG. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The episode list could probably have been kept. A list like this is "mere facts", not subject to copyright unless there is some creative aspect like selection or sequencing, which does not apply in this case. But I see no good reason to keep it - way too much detail. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is essentially a GNG pass from footnotes already showing, actually. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article about the TV series, it is wp:notable. If the tavern is notable, then a new article should be created, not the current one overwritten. Perhaps this article could be renamed, but if so Dog and Duck should be a disambiguation page as there are many Dog and Duck pubs.Martin451 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At risk of causing further confusion, I have moved the article to Dog and Duck (TV series) and pointed the inbound links to that title. Assuming the decision is to keep the TV show article, the "Dog and Duck" redirect can be converted to a disambiguation page. Several pubs by this name may turn out to be notable. Readers may well be looking for one that is open today rather than the London one demolished in 1811. I see at least one book with this title. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea, but the move should ideally have waited until after the AFD was closed. Giant Snowman 15:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fine work of Aymatth has proved my gut feeling right. Both the TV series and tavern are notable and the sensible dabbing has been done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note The AFD template was removed from Dog and Duck so a bot has thoughtfully restored it.[2] Thincat (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another note An AFD template at Dog and Duck (TV_series) is also indicating this discussion, but there is no AFD template at Dog and Duck (pub). To me this seems likely to be correct. Thincat (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The article about the pub is not up for discussion. Giant Snowman 19:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought and that's also why I think it is likely to be correct there is no AFD template there. Thincat (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like Yes! We Have No Bananas. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that the page about the tavern has now been nominated? It seemed best to pursue that separately now that the TV show topic has found some support. Warden (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... which has precisely zero relevance to this AfD. Dricherby (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, now that the tavern page is well-established, the cut/paste edit which ties the two pages means that this one cannot be deleted without further work. See WP:COPYWITHIN. Warden (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and if you hadn't attempted to hijack the article, none of these problems would have arisen. Giant Snowman 11:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I had not taken action at prod patrol, the page would have been quietly deleted and we'd have nothing instead of multiple articles which now show good promise. All's well that ends well... Warden (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Never demolished to make way for a hospital, nor a war museum, but equally special, I'm sure. And probably far more significant to many toddlers of the 1990s. Not sure why CW is getting quite so much flak - surely two good articles are better than one poor one. [3] Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable series, broadcast on minor network. Refs are passing, press releases or industry-related. Miniapolis 00:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the above comment is facetious. The show was broadcast nationally on CITV, a programming block of the ITV Network, between 1999 and 2001. Until 2005 ITV was the most widely watched network in the U.K., ahead of BBC One. As stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Broadcast media, "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." The cited books and other sources do indeed discuss the industry, as one would expect. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CITV is a subsidiary of ITV, and does not have the latter's viewership numbers; it's a niche channel. Miniapolis 02:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CITV is Children's ITV. It is not a "niche channel" but a programming block carried on the main ITV channel at times when children are likely to be watching. TV series, even when broadcast nationally by a major network as this one was, never reach 100% of the network's audience. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2013 (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.