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 delete. will userfy on request but arguments to keep on the back of it being well written OR or that it could be sourced do not address policy Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Television in the 2000s

[edit]

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

Page is completely original research with absolutely no references for any of the information given. It has been tagged for help for a long time, but I do not believe this article can be saved. Angryapathy (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a bad article, but not really the right focus for an encyclopedia. All of the shows mentioned have their own articles where the facts about them can be found. I am also sure there are articles about the TV ratings for the decade. Everything else is someone's opinions about which shows were important and why, so WP:Original research Steve Dufour (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unsourced original essay on a notable topic. If it was a piece of crap, it would be a simple call, but the quality of the work is indicative that keeping it alive for sourcing may be the prescription — this was clearly not pulled out of the hindquarters of a casual editor, but was well researched although improperly footnoted. Carrite (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - Small section on TV in the UK should be chopped off and the article retitled American television in the 2000s. The topic is too big to add ~~Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, etc.~~ the rest of the world and do a decent job of it. I have flagged this for rescue, let's see if someone comes along to get this thing sourced out... Carrite (talk) 15:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news shows some results. One news source says "REALITY, POINTLESS DRAMA DEFINE TV IN THE 2000S". The article requires a paid subscription to that newspaper to read it though. But some have commented on the television shows of this decade, and what defines them. Listing the highest rated show for each year of this decade makes sense, that something perfectly valid. All the shows listed in various categories should have their ratings listed as well. List their lowest and their highest ratings, such as ratings: 4.2 - 5.6 million viewers. A category could be made for that, one tab for lowest ratings and one for highest ratings. Dream Focus 18:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There may be the germ of an articel here. It focus is the US and I agree to hte rename to American television in the 2000s.Slatersteven (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely unverified. The subject is probably worthy of a stand alone article, but considering the article's current situation and its lack of sourcing, it would be best to start anew. --Pink Bull 04:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – could become well-sourced and a good article, but definitely rename per the above suggestion. Jenks24 (talk) 14:26, 8 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.