- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All My Circuits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- The Scary Door (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Non-notable fictional TV series. Neither has received significant coverage from secondary sources, so they fail Wikipedia:Verifiability. 17Drew 02:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Saw it coming... Lugnuts 07:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh, the alternative is a mass nomination, which seems poor judgment. 17Drew 08:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- From The Scary Door article: Bender then shrugs and remarks that he "saw it coming." Lugnuts 10:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Let me guess- will there be articles on each of the episodes of said television show next?! Not notable. i said 01:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both No sources for information beyond plot, which Wikipedia is not. Jay32183 02:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: perhaps worthy of at least merging some information to All My Children and then redirecting without deleting to Futurama. With the new Futurama movies coming out, the notability of Futurama related stuff may continue to grow. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/merge as per comment above Lugnuts 07:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Commentkeep Itchy and Scratchy has a perfectly good article, I see no reason why these fictional shows shouldn;t have the same. They'll need better sourcing to survive the afd of course. Artw 01:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Google tells me it gets a mention in " Drawn to Television: Prime-Time Animation from the Flintstones to Family Guy" (on Page 123) - if someone can track that down then it'd be a start. Artw 01:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One mention in a book does not constitute "significant coverage". And references to the show itself or DVD commentaries (like the ones used in The Itchy & Scratchy Show) are not "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So Wikipedia:Notability is pretty clear that neither of these shows are notable. 17Drew 01:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Google tells me it gets a mention in " Drawn to Television: Prime-Time Animation from the Flintstones to Family Guy" (on Page 123) - if someone can track that down then it'd be a start. Artw 01:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, unreferenced and unverifiable, especially in comparison to The Itchy & Scratchy Show as mentioned above. •97198 talk 12:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean unverifiable? It's in the show and the audio commentaries.
- WP:V requires that an article have third-party sources. 17Drew 14:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And that book... sorry, you can maker an argument based on notaboility, but WP:V is a bit of a nonstarter here. Artw 15:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So far all that's been stated is that one of the two shows nominated is mentioned in a book. Nobody's stated what the book actually says about it, or if the information in the book can actually be used for the article; for all we know, it mentions the fictional show as an example of a show-within-a-show. 17Drew 16:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Shrugs. You may have a point, as notability goes - I've not actually read the book, or done further searches (it's one of the cases where something is heavily referenced on blogs and boards and the like, so searching is a pain) - though TBH I'm seeing enough to beleive that sources could be found to meet WP:N, hence the keep vote. As for WP:V, I don;t think you have a case whatsoever, and frankly it seems silly bringing it up at all. Artw 17:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no evidence of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic. This isn't a matter of people exerting effort, sources actually aren't out there. Jay32183 17:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- [edit conflict] Considering that still no reliable third-party sources have been provided, WP:V seems to be a pretty good reason to delete the articles. 17Drew 17:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Shrugs. You may have a point, as notability goes - I've not actually read the book, or done further searches (it's one of the cases where something is heavily referenced on blogs and boards and the like, so searching is a pain) - though TBH I'm seeing enough to beleive that sources could be found to meet WP:N, hence the keep vote. As for WP:V, I don;t think you have a case whatsoever, and frankly it seems silly bringing it up at all. Artw 17:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So far all that's been stated is that one of the two shows nominated is mentioned in a book. Nobody's stated what the book actually says about it, or if the information in the book can actually be used for the article; for all we know, it mentions the fictional show as an example of a show-within-a-show. 17Drew 16:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And that book... sorry, you can maker an argument based on notaboility, but WP:V is a bit of a nonstarter here. Artw 15:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V requires that an article have third-party sources. 17Drew 14:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean unverifiable? It's in the show and the audio commentaries.
- Delete Non-notable. User:Albert Einsteins pipe
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Artw 14:00, 22 September 2007 (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.