Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Made by Hand

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made by Hand

[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)

No WP:SIGCOV, just rewriting of an old 1940s television programme which appears to be neither notable, nor significant, nor remembered. Unsourced except for the BBC. JJLiu112 (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason we should delete Craftsmen at Work; these are both pre-1953 BBC TV programmes that were "lost" (no archives exist), and very little is known about them today, so they don't meet WP:GNG. The page creator probably intended both articles to be like TV compendium entries, but they don't meet current Wikipedia standards for notability. Incidentally, a search for TV program(me)s called Made by Hand yields a likely short-lived 2014 series with that name in the US (coverage found so far looks mainly like TV listings); and a more cutting-edge program called Made by Hand brought to you by LinkTV (also not particularly notable in terms of secondary coverage). Cielquiparle (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2022 (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.