| Revision as of 21:13, 16 June 2008 editYngvarr (talk | contribs)Rollbackers13,472 edits adding Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:23, 18 June 2008 edit undoBaa (talk | contribs)18,839 editsm →The Bruised Bluenana: DeleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| :*It does not meet ], ''A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'', because it does not provide ] ] for adherence of that policy. This is why I state that a separate article is not suitable, but the synopses entry on the main series page is suitable. Further, it does not meet any of the guidelines at ]. I won't address the (seemingly endless) dispute at ]; until it is resolved, I'll adhere to the guideline as it is written. Finally, if one were to address the spelling, grammar, etc, and that the article is written purely as a plot summary, and then consider ], the article would end up trimmed down to a handful of sentences, for which the main series page would suffice. ] ] 21:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | :*It does not meet ], ''A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'', because it does not provide ] ] for adherence of that policy. This is why I state that a separate article is not suitable, but the synopses entry on the main series page is suitable. Further, it does not meet any of the guidelines at ]. I won't address the (seemingly endless) dispute at ]; until it is resolved, I'll adhere to the guideline as it is written. Finally, if one were to address the spelling, grammar, etc, and that the article is written purely as a plot summary, and then consider ], the article would end up trimmed down to a handful of sentences, for which the main series page would suffice. ] ] 21:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small><small>—] ] 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small><small>—] ] 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)</small> | ||
| * '''Delete''' Nope, can't see how in any way this one is worth it's own article. <font color="#0D98DA">]</font> <sub>]</sub> 01:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:23, 18 June 2008
The Bruised Bluenana
- The Bruised Bluenana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Might fit better in a list of episodes. StaticGull Talk 17:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete It's a plot summary which already has a suitably brief synopsis on the Chowder (TV series) article. Yngvarr (c) 18:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Yngvarr. « D. Trebbien (talk) 19:24 2008 June 16 (UTC)
- Keep. That there is already a capsule synopsis at Chowder (TV series) isn't a rationale to delete, since most of our "X TV season" articles have both short in-article synopses as well as full length articles for the episodes. I don't see anything here that violates our guidelines on episode synopses. Ford MF (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- It does not meet WP:N, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, because it does not provide verifable sources for adherence of that policy. This is why I state that a separate article is not suitable, but the synopses entry on the main series page is suitable. Further, it does not meet any of the guidelines at WP:EPISODE. I won't address the (seemingly endless) dispute at WP:EPISODE; until it is resolved, I'll adhere to the guideline as it is written. Finally, if one were to address the spelling, grammar, etc, and that the article is written purely as a plot summary, and then consider WP:PLOT, the article would end up trimmed down to a handful of sentences, for which the main series page would suffice. Yngvarr (c) 21:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Yngvarr (c) 21:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Nope, can't see how in any way this one is worth it's own article. treelo talk 01:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)