Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jedward: Let Loose

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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jedward: Let Loose

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

Unremarkable TV show with no significant independent coverage. Should be merged to Jedward until notability is proven. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Much as I cannot think of a worse form of torture than watching a show such as this one, this programme has received extensive promotion and coverage in The Mirror, The Sun and various other rags. CountdownCrispy ^{☎ ✎} 17:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is these 'rags' (as you put it) that are the reason why it should be redirected. Articles should only be created where there is significant coverage and where the series has significant cultural impact or impact upon the artist/career. A three-part show documenting the antics of Jedward as they order a takeaway or squabble in Ikea (as seen in first episode) is hardly ground-breaking. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 19:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, no significant coverage, not especially notable. Anemone Projectors 18:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge First I don't think Jedward themselves are really notable and nobody will be talking about them in 6 months time, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. The sitcom though is non-notable, but considering there is a decent article up, I say we merge the article to the main Jedward article. If that isn't agreed on, I say we delete, on fails notability.--Lookingthrough (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage around, so it is notable, however awful it is. I have to wonder where some people searched for coverage.--Michig (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As others have said the show has generated extensive coverage, and as mentioned on the page it is possible the show could be returning for another series - increasing the shows notability. I also feel this entry is just as notable as The Kylie Show, Style Queen and The Girls Aloud Party etc, all of which remain on Wikipedia, despite being short, or even one-off shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthedoctor2009 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 14 September 2010 (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.