Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Class Act (Happy Tree Friends)

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. Articles on individual TV episodes are just slightly controversial these days. I looked at the recent Arbcom case and at Talk:List of Happy Tree Friends episodes, to find out the opinion of those editors on having individual episode articles. I'm confident that a Delete verdict (as favored by a majority of the editors below) does fit with current policy. There is no bar to re-creation of the article if reliable sources can be found showing out-of-universe notability. There is not really anything to merge because the proposed target article already has a table entry for this episode containing everything that will fit in the cells. EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Arbcom[reply]

Class Act (Happy Tree Friends)

I don't think that individual Happy Tree Friends episodes meet the general notability guidelines, and that List of Happy Tree Friends episodes is enough. There are many other individual Happy Tree Friends episode article, and though I do not list them all in this AfD, and individual articles should be treated on their merits, notability issues, and the best course of action will probably coincide for most of those episodes. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Happy Tree Friends episodes. No real world notability asserted in article, and little likely to be found.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure that Class Act (Happy Tree Friends) is a very good fit for a merge with List of Happy Tree Friends episodes, and the latter article is, in my opinion, a more professional, more encyclopedic, much better treatment of the subject. --AnnaFrance (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2008 (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.