Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Tour (2006 documentary)

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. Joyous! | Talk 02:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Tour (2006 documentary)

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

Fails WP:GNG with no secondary sources about the programme or DVD itself, just where to buy it, and some primary sources confirming that the director has worked on other things. McGeddon (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there is a new programme of the same name on wikipedia and that has not been deleted - we made our film 10 years before the new one - please do not delete - we do not want the other programme to take precendce over our copyright

there is a new programme of the same name on wikipedia and that has not been deleted - we made our film 10 years before the new one - please do not delete

there is another film that uses the same title as ours - when our film was made [11 years ago] web connections were less common than they are now - most of the information about this work was in the printed press

the links are to credible sources such as the BBC, film distributors and online newspapers - the links are things such as award bodies who nominated the director for an award and broadcasters that prove that the director producer did in fact work on these other things and give credibility— Preceding unsigned comment added by BIGGER PICTURE (talk • contribs) 17:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trying to create a wikipedia article to protect copyright is a very odd thing to do, I can't imagine for one minute a judge taking that into consideration. There is absolutely nothing in the article that makes a credible claim to significance. Sounds like it was done on a shoestring and claiming that is was as an innovation to have the presenters mixing the sound and shooting the images themselves is a little far-fetched. there is nothing about the channels that it was aired on which suggests that it was never picked up...Domdeparis (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2016 (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.