Talk:The Spice Trail

Hangon

This is an interesting series with a lot of important information that can be used as a source for other articles. If this needs deleting because of advertising then perhaps star trek needs deleting too. Scottonsocks (talk) 18:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with the external link then kill that off instead of the entire article. This series will be syndicated to many different television networks around the world and the link will then be irrelevant. But for now the link is necessary so the article can be corrected, checked and updated by UK viewers of the show. Scottonsocks (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You comment that "If this needs deleting because of advertising then perhaps star trek needs deleting too" is patently absurd, and editors who see you engaging is such rhetoric will not take you seriously. The external link is not the problem — pretty much any BBC show will include such a link. But you need to do two things: 1) take out all the episode-by-episode synopsis, which gives too much detail for this series of limited notability, and 2) find some articles about this show from other reliable sources to which you can link. And please back up your claim that this show will be syndicated around the world. A BBC programme is almost by default notable, but with what you've given us so far, it is still in danger territory as far as inclusion goes. A little effort will fix that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The comment about star trek was in jest and so they shouldn't take such a comment seriously. The series contains a wealth of information and there is a enormous interest in the series at the moment. Here are just a few of the links about the series. limited notability is just your opinion but its not often in my experience that you get this much coverage in the press or the media or by individuals.

• Guardian
• Mirror
• Independent
• Metro
• Express
• digiguide
• Kate Holden
• tvguide
• Foodpolicy
• a blog
• another blog
• another blog

Scottonsocks (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what we're looking for. The "limited notability" was based on the provided coverage, or lack thereof. I'll withdraw the speedy-deletion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, the ones from The Guardian and The Independent are very good; the ones for Daily Mirror and Daily Express are good too. The blogs toward the end are probably not good. What you need to do is use these to reference the article, see referencing for beginners. Also make sure that the article follows core policies particularly neutral point of view; in particular, it must be amended so that it doesn't read like a press release, and in that I agree with Realkyhick.

Few of use have the time to create a perfect article (yes, I saw your user page), and it's not necessary to make an article "perfect" for it to survive a speedy-delete nomination; just make sure that it doesn't fall foul of any of the criteria for speedy deletion. A good way of finding what's likely to be acceptable is to look at what's already out there; having chosen a page, check its page history to see if it's been around for more than a few weeks and has constructive edits by several different people. If it has, chances are that it won't get deleted and certainly won't get speedied. Things that start small can end up big; here's how Life (the BBC TV series) started out: it's not brilliantly written, but note in particular the referencing - eight different sources for three paragraphs. Nowadays it looks like this, and will survive any deletion nomination you care to throw at it. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)