Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Gear (series 11)

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. Consensus herein is for article retention. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gear (series 11)

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

I'm not sure where to begin with this. First, this is non-notable, without significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Second, this entire page seems like a walking advertisement, the format is very abnormal, and the lead is gone because I took it out as a copyvio. I'm sure there are lots more copyvios on this page, I simply don't have time to look for them right now. Cheers. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 04:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first, I don't think that's copyvio at all - I think the website in question copied its text from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. Note it is in exactly the same format as Top Gear (series 10) and Top Gear (series 12) on either side (and every one of the other 21 articles, for a total of 22). All are formatted the same way and it doesn't seem particularly abnormal. Such season-by-season articles are commonplace for highly rated notable television shows, fiction, non-fiction and otherwise. I see no reason to randomly delete one right in the middle. I'll restore the lede (issues with which could be resolved without blanking anyway) until it can be demonstrated that it is an actual copyvio. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stalwart111 - Episode guides like these can't generally be well sourced, You have to make do with what you have which with these aren't alot, Also if we delete this we may aswell delete the lot which IMHO as an encyclopedia is a pretty stupid idea, Also it's obvious this site had copied the lead from here, Anyway not really seeing any valid reason for deletion. –Davey2010^Talk 05:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep-as said above the fact that it is a episode guide.Wgolf (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2015 (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.