Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nanny (season 5)

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. Sandstein 14:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nanny (season 5)

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

No source provided nor found to suggest notability for the season, therefore fails WP:GNG. There are for example no reviews for the season - [1][2] Whether the main article The Nanny is notable or not is irrelevant as the notability of the season is not inherited from the main article. The season needs significant independent coverage which is unfortunately absent. The same goes for many of the other seasons. Hzh (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like seasons 2-4 and 6 also fail GNG. I am also nominating them:

–LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:09, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, a pre-internet tv series broadcast nationally on CBS and popular enough to have six seasons will almost certainly pass WP:GNG for each season with offline and /or paywalled sources if not available online. The parent article The Nanny TV series and The Nanny (season 1) are well referenced and pass WP:GNG so it is a strong sign that the other seasons will as well. It is also debateable as to whether the individual seasons need to demonstrate individual notabilty as they can be seen as splits from the parent articlw where notability is clearly demonstrated. It is also unhelpful to have added the other seasons as showing notability for season 5 would have been enough as evidence of the other seasons. Haven't searched yet but offline sources should exist. Atlantic306 (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New articles split from a main article need to be sufficiently notable themselves per WP:SPLIT, it is not a debatable point. Do improve the sourcing of the article if possible, and if the sources are good then the articles can stay, but try to avoid assuming that sources must exist, assumption that could not be substantiated with your previous deprod. Hzh (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a valid split of an inarguably notable topic, and even for the sake of argument it's not, it could be merged into a list of The Nanny episodes. That, however, would be beside the point. SportingFlyer talk 05:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SportingFlyer; we've got a lot of info broken out into their own seasons already and it's well organized. No point merging into a messy 'list of'. Nate • (chatter) 05:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we ignoring all the basic requirements for WP:GNG on sourcing, verifiability, etc.? I haven't seen any argument presented for keeping that is found in accepted policies or guidelines. Hzh (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The seasons inherit their notability from the series just like any other elements (episodes, characters) because they are are WP:SIZESPLITs from the main topic. As long as they are kept consolidated to an appropriate level based on the amount of their content, they shouldn't be challenged on notability. Its almost unheard of for a season to truly not have sources available - some source must have been used for the titles, directors, airdates, etc. and needs to be fixed via editing process. Feel free to tag them as needing sources or check some other more well-developed seasons of other series to see what sources they use. -- Netoholic @ 08:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This suggestion that you don't need citation for series and episode is simply wrong. Please read WP:EPISODE All articles on Wikipedia must meet notability guidelines, and that while it is quite likely that sources can be found to support a series or season page ... such pages must still be notable. Wikipedia is littered with episode and seasons articles that are not supported by sources, which create the impression that such articles do not need sources as can be see in the discussion here and their notability are inherited, this is clearly wrong according to accepted guidelines on television. If you are want claim that it is falls under WP:SIZESPLIT, please read the lead of the guideline that says the article can be split but only if the new articles are themselves ... sourced (note also that Netoholic changed the requirement for notability without discussion). Hzh (talk) 08:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely do need to have sources (citations). My point was that the notability shouldn't be debated independently. Could you imagine deletion discussions where seasons 3-5 of series were deleted as not notable, but seasons 1,2, and 6 were kept? Too weird. Put {{More citations needed}} on them, contact the page creator, or fix it by finding sources. -- Netoholic @ 09:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can very well imagine them. There is simply no inherited notability for articles. otherwise there would be no need for WP:EPISODE to say that the episode and series/season need to be notable themselves, and to suggest that any problem articles should be dealt with. If you have an issue with the guideline, then take it up in the talk page there. Hzh (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that during the airing of Season 5 of The Nanny that there wasn't significant coverage in reliable sources? -- Netoholic @ 09:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it disturbing that Netoholic changed the article on WP:SPLIT to remove the requirement for notability [3] that directly contradicted the editor's position in the page cited. This deliberate changing without discussion to bolster an editor's case is just wrong. The fact is that the requirement for notability of individual episode and season is well-established, without such guideline the amount of trivia in Wikipedia would simply proliferate, as there is no way of determining whether any individual episode or seasons for any television show deserves its own article. Given the number the television shows and the absolutely gigantic number of episodes aired around the world, the idea that any season or episode of a show should have its own article without any demonstration of notability is just horrifying. Hzh (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it because I don't think it reflects common experience. I didn't need to change it to bolster any case. To do that, all I need to do is ask you (again) - Do you think that during the airing of Season 5 of The Nanny that there wasn't significant coverage in reliable sources? -- Netoholic @ 12:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I think there was or wasn't is irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant is that I can't find them. You need to demonstrate its notability, rather than making assumptions. I have considered creating many articles, but finding sources to support them had been difficult for a variety of reason (e.g. sources not archived as they were from a pre-internet age, the country or language involved, etc.). Even though I know that something equivalent in the present day or found in the US or Europe would be considered notable, I didn't create these articles as I know I cannot adequately source them. Keeping an article simply because you believe them to be notable but cannot demonstrate to be so is wrong, as is removing an accepted criterion in a page you used to support your case. Hzh (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references, this one was published in 1997 when the fifth season was aired Hollywood Reporter, this one also in 1997 The Hollywood Reporter, and again 1997 Hollywood Reporter, this an overview of all seasons printed in 2000 People Magazine, and a review of series 4 Entertainment Weekly, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)

I'm afraid two of the links appear to be faulty and I cannot see them. The only ones from 1997 I can see are from the end of season 4 [4][5] (dated May 1997, season 5 started in October 1997). Overview of the series is relevant to the main article, not specific season. Hzh (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- I think an overview that relates to every season is a relevant source for every season article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, have fixed the refs, the first one is sig cov and the EW one is a review of the 4th series which has been bundled here, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per my Keep vote above, I agree with this sourcing. SportingFlyer talk 21:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are for season 5 though - the date of the Hollywood Reporter article clearly suggests that it is for the season 4 finale, and the Entertainment weekly one is actually for Season 3. These may support season 3 and 4, but not 5. Hzh (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2018 (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.