Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C.O.P.S. For Kids

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 Merge to C.O.P.S. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C.O.P.S. For Kids

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

A minor facet without any reliable third person sources or notability it should be merged or deleted

Dwanyewest (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. No indication it passes WP:N. Pcap ping 06:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge it's the PSA portion of the TV show, back when cartoons had Public Service Announcements, thus is a major element in the format of the TV series. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming there's a source for the statement above. Has the nominator looked, or is he going by first impressions. It's hard to tell , with an identical comment for every nomination. If he has done the work of looking for sources and failed, he should help us all by saying so. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree. Abductive (reasoning) 08:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails our general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (well-trimmed) to C.O.P.S. unless nom can show topic never received any mentions at all. Abductive (reasoning) 08:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have looked for reliable third person information regarding COPS for Kids and the nearest I found is two articles from TVShowsOnDVD.com [1][2] and both only make a trivial mention of COPS PSA's. This is not substantial coverage of the subject in hand and wikipedia guideline insist the sources must be substantial. I don't feel that a few sentences which list Extra's on a DVD review is sufficient evidence to demonstrate substantial notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2010 (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.