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. postdlf (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fish (BBC TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 10:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable. References include Sunday Herald, BBC News, The Independent, The Observer. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 12:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 12:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above, and I'll add that while I'm not typically a fan of "all x are notable"-type statements, a BBC drama is extremely likely to be notable and have at least a reasonable amount of media coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has had notable coverage in the UK. IJA (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep A television series that was broadcast on the BBC is notable. It might make sense to withdraw this nomination. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus has shown significant independent sources are available. Edward321 (talk) 03:20, 27 March 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.