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. Concerns for deletion appear to have been addressed. There does appear to be an emerging consensus for changing the article's title. Further discussion should take place in a requested move. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Top Gear[edit]

Criticism of Top Gear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A somewhat unencyclopaedic synthesis forked from a main article; these criticisms of a TV series are not in themselves sufficiently notable (and are summarised in the main article about the series). – Kieran T ^(talk) 00:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- not a terrible starting point for an article. The show is controversial (in a storm in a teacup sense), I don't see why this article is unencyclopedic. Petty, yes, but wowsers like to whinge. Greglocock (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Natural break-out article from the main topic article, lots of quality third-party coverage. Deletion is in my view completely unjustifed by policy and would be pure censorship. Having said that the article does need quite a bit of work (like about 3 million others...) Rangoon11 (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough general coverage in the press to show notability. Lugnuts (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hostile attack page, contrary to core policy. The article title has been devised to foster a one-sided ragbag of whinges but Wikipedia is not the BBC complaints department. The main forum for that is named Points of View — Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- a very good article infact, a very good representation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruno Russell (talk • contribs) 12:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In response to Colonel Warden, Top Gear has been criticised in the UK national press on numerous occasions. Regardless of your personal opinion on whether or not the criticism is justified, it is clear from the numerous references that it is certainly notable, and that is what counts here. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Show is notable, and there is a fair bit of valid content. --Axel™ (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is sufficently well-sourced and notable. Glimmer721 ^talk 01:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is it too early to WP:SNOW this? --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Surely not. This is of course not a vote, and in terms of points made rather than number of contributors, it's not so clear-cut. I'd say there's some degree of confusion whereby the notability of the programme influences the notability of the criticisms, which isn't a given. 188.220.18.163 (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But do a major overhaul so there is no need for any more tags at the top of the page. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 14:49, 24 November 2011 (UDelete
• Delete this whole article is a biased way of looking at TopGear. So because it is biased it has no place in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDamox (talk • contribs) 00:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the opening paragraph, I see both a criticism by Jeremy Clarkson towards the BBC, and a counter-response from the BBC following this. That doesn't sound particularly like bias to me. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources.--Cavarrone (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep series that has had significant criticism in recent years discussed in reliable sources (e.g. in UK newspapers/tabloids). If there are not enough citations add them instead of deleting an article which sooner or later will be recreated if someone is bold enough to create an article with a deleted article message popping up (which usually discourages the average person). S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 01:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absurd split combining several disparate things: the dispute over the extent to which BBC supported the program, the occurrences of racism and homophobia, and the dangerous or unduly damaging episodes. Putting all this together amount to a POV split: everything negative about Top Gear. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - perhaps a better title would be "Controversy of Top Gear"? --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (as the original nominator) — if the article is retained I'd certainly be supportive of that name change. There is undeniably controversy. I'd still be unconvinced it's sufficiently notable for its own article (references alone, even this many, don't establish suitable notability), but "criticism" is widely (if wrongly!) perceived as inherently one-sided whereas a description of controversy would seem more fair as well as factual. – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There are a lot of articles beginning with Criticism of... including one named Criticism of Wikipedia. I don't see what's controversial about the word criticism. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 18:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Although my vote of keep above is not dependent on it, I would be happy with a change of name as proposed above (although I think something like 'Controversies relating to Top Gear' would be neater'). Rangoon11 (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2011 (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.