Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Journey of the Magna Carta King

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. The one "keep" makes little sense. "All TV and radio programming is notable" is certainly not our policy. Sandstein 12:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Journey of the Magna Carta King

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Cannot see how this meets criteria of WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why has a programme that provided a new viewpoint on the history of king john is not notable is questionable - he is devisive character from British history and the programme discuss these, as well as a archaeological survey that was described as game changing. One reference was rejected when the page was created as it was an article from the Daily Mail that was an interview with the presenters. Howver this is a programme that was on BBC One one of the UKs biggest channels. Is this less notable than programmes like Long Shadow (TV series) (which is a also poorly written) which is on wikipedia? This programme was also quoted in Reification and Representation: Architecture in the Politico-Media-Complex By Graham Cairns ISBN:9781138927414 (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=axBqDwAAQBAJ&lpg=PT147). Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition the radio times is an independent article as it has not been part of the BBC since 2011. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "a programme that provided a new viewpoint on the history of King John"... a claim not made in the article.TheLongTone (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a claim that was made in the Daily mail article (Is 'tyrannical' King John a victim of the worst smear campaign in history? Letters show Magna Carta monarch was enthusiastic, energetic and optimistic) which cannot be used in the article so the claim cannot be stated. However The radio Times is an independent reference and has been used by many television programme pages for notability. Also Wikipedia Notability on Media states "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. "Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Radio Times is a listings publication; it serves to confirm details such as cast or director of a program, but in no way does it confrm notability. In the way that being listed in an A-Z street guide does not make a street notable. And as for what the Daily Mail writes.... TheLongTone (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 10:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Wikipedia notability on media does quote that all TV and radio programming is notable. Also was part of 800 anniversary of Magna Carta celebrations as per the official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:E4D0:5DAB:359:CF4D (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This will be a long post, because admins need to see this. Because of poor facts on this article, I need to address one thing that is also a possible key as to why this show has not gotten some significant coverage. According to this article, it says it is a BBC One show...but it is not. It actually was a BBC Four one (which also has almost 20 times less audience share per their respective articles), that aired on February 7 per https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b052hrdd (look at broadcast section in the bottom). It actually never aired on BBC One but on BBC News (TV Channel) as per https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0517cc5 (it aired on January 30 but only as a limited broadcast in some parts of UK, but not national wide) and also confirmed by the own Chruch Times article in the article itself. This subject completely fails WP:GNG. References in the article go as listed: premiere date TV guide, primary promo link, summary of the show, primary, primary source. Nothing here satisfies WP:SECONDARY or WP:SIGCOV. Daily Mail source found is not a reliable source per Wiki guidelines, so that is out of discussion as well here. WP:TVSERIES also says that the absence or presence of sources is more important than the geographic range of the said program (so the claim that all TV shows are automatically notable made by the IP user is also invalid). Considering I was not able to find anything on my WP:BEFORE search, nothing there as well. Overall, just not notable. And regarding Davidstewartharvey's post, per WP:NOTINHERITED, the fact it covers a very notable thing does not pass it notability. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2018 (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.