Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/It Takes Two (Singaporean 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It Takes Two (Singaporean TV series)

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

Was supposedly speedied, but I think its been contested somewhat. The contestors reasoning was that it would be recreated for another time. (See the articles talk page) Nevertheless, we cannot follow that kind of logic. Policies like WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL are here for a reason, and hence we should delete this unreferenced page first. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 16:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~, G4, per the original AFD. This was created (from a redirect) a couple weeks after the AFD with no obvious improvements. I'm not even sure what you mean by "I think its been contested somewhat".. there was an invalid prod nomination but no speedy noms other than the one you declined. Hairhorn (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that it's improved; the original version was still speediable, despite the wobbly decline reasoning. Hairhorn (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't see much improvement, other than the addition of three little sources Which I don't think have much significance, as per my comments below. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to confess I haven't been through the sources. But if there's so little improvement, it should have been speedied long ago. Hairhorn (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This television drama has a wide coverage in the Singaporean media (see this, this and this), so it should meet WP:VERIFY. This article does not seem to be an advert as well, and the drama is already confirmed by Mediacorp, and not, as I quote "product announcements and rumors". As per the above reasons, I think that this article does not meet WP:CRYSTAL criteria and thus should not be deleted. Lastly, looking at the previous AFD, the main concern raised there is about the insufficient coverage of the drama in the media, and as I mentioned above, this situation has already changed, so there should not be any room for contention now.--Lionratz (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How much more proof do admin need? Official Website (in Chinese)Insiders Blog by one of the actors. xinmsn is MediaCorp's web portal (a collaboration with MSN) so it can be taken as an official source. Acsian88 (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources in the article itself that appear to be reliable, like the one from AsiaOne, and the CNA one, but actually they are just rather brief mentions of the show, and do not go in depth about the show and such. Example. This source mentions more about the actor supposedly starring in the drama, rather than chronicling about the show. It also does not say if production has actually started or ended, and the given release date could just be tentative speculation. Same here for this second source. Talks mostly, 95% about the actor and her role, and briefly mentions the show in two lines or so. The xin msn one, I have already posted a short message on the reliable source noticeboard, so we'll have to wait for other people's opinions if its a WP:RS or not. (One thing though, official source may not be a reliable one) So, are those reliable enough? Do this few puny sources assert strong notability? Tell you what, wait till November, when there will most likely be more news coverage. As for now, we should either userfy, incubate, or just downright delete. Thank you. If you disagree, please comment. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:13, 24 September 2012 (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.