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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Bradshaws[edit]

The Bradshaws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unreferenced treatment of a group of characters created on a radio show. Existence, yes.. notability? not convinced. User:Booksbooksbooks who has been the sole substantive editor here recently has been unresponsive to several messages advising of good practice. Deizio talk 18:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got all the imformation from the Bradshaws episodes and Buzz Hawkins' live show in Salford, there are dozens of articles about fictional characters that go deeper than I did (for Example, most of the articles about the Discworld series of novels go so far in imformation that the articles have become like a fansite) I'll add some references very soon and I'll try to remove imformation that is not needed-User:Booksbooksbooks

The Bradshaws was a radio comedy, with tapes and CDs of performances as well as VHS tapes being sold commercially. A television spin-off was aired nationally, and a spin-off theatre show also toured. I fail to see how The Bradshaws is not a notable series, and would in fact argue that the article needs a request for contributions from other editors, not deletion. Lavareef 18:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable as others of its ilk, and no support for deletion so just close as keep rather than relisting and increasing backlog. Gene Nygaard 07:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems to meet the standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 06:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above. Not perhaps the most notable of sitcoms, but certainly appears to be above the threshold - we don't seem to have a specific set of criteria for radio/TV series, surprisingly, but it would pass WP:BK if it were a book, I think. :) Tevildo 06:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs a good cleanup, but I see no reason to delete. --MatthewUND^(talk) 09:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Seems to have minor noteablity, I agree it could use a good rewrite. Davidpdx 11:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just scrapes past the notability barrier. WMMartin 18:52, 3 January 2007 (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.