Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventure Time (season 6)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. No prejudice against any editor performing a redirect. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Adventure Time (season 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not that I think this is a problem with WP:CRYSTALBALL, but it is way WP:TOOSOON to have an article about this show's sixth season exist. I know the sources cited in this article as of this timeare reliable, but this looks too short right now for the season to have its own page. Unless more info from reliable sources can be found to make it long enough for the article to be here, a written work about it on this encyclopedia would be just none other than unnecessary. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 19:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I mean, I know that I created this, but the show is extremely notable and it has been renewed for a sixth season. In fact, according to the sources in the article, it's being boarded currently, and will probably air soon. I can't find anything in WP:TOOSOON that talks about a TV season being "too soon", especially considering what a heavy hitter (when it comes to ratings) Adventure Time is.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because this article is about a season of a well-known TV series, and that the show has had its previous season ratings very high, does not mean the season itself is notable enough for Wikipedia. There needs to be a lot more coverage from secondary sources about the sixth season cited and included here to merit its own article. Not that you need to do this, but getting a reliable source of when the season is going to start would also be nice. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 22:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I get that, but I just feel that a deletion nomination based on WP:TOOSOON isn't exactly appropriate in this situation. For instance, this isn't an article about Adventure Time (season 7) because, while the show very well might go to that season, there is no sources that back this up. However, this article has sources (both from the network and the storyboarders themselves), so it does have sources to back it up.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know there are sources here, but its not enough. I know it may not be too soon, but there still needs to be cited much more coverage in articles from webzines and/or newspapers to establish notability, and if that can't happen, there would be no reason for an article like this to be here. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 00:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I get that, but I just feel that a deletion nomination based on WP:TOOSOON isn't exactly appropriate in this situation. For instance, this isn't an article about Adventure Time (season 7) because, while the show very well might go to that season, there is no sources that back this up. However, this article has sources (both from the network and the storyboarders themselves), so it does have sources to back it up.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because this article is about a season of a well-known TV series, and that the show has had its previous season ratings very high, does not mean the season itself is notable enough for Wikipedia. There needs to be a lot more coverage from secondary sources about the sixth season cited and included here to merit its own article. Not that you need to do this, but getting a reliable source of when the season is going to start would also be nice. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 22:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Adventure Time episodes#Season 6 .28TBA.29. Adventure Time's notability is not being questioned. The problem with this season's article is that, barring a generic "series recap" paragraph, there's only two sentences, which proves hardly any sources exist as of this writing. The article is going to be razor-thin for a while, as production has hardly commenced. It is just far too soon as of now. A redirect is helpful, as it ensures that page history isn't lost and the page can easily be re-created when more info is released. Plus, Adventure Time fans can still get the small info on the season, instead of getting nothing at all. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, OK, I'd be fine with this. Then it can be "resurrected" when the time comes.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 03:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and generally object to these sorts of pointless AFDs which do absolutely nothing to help the encyclopaedia. I see absolutely no benefit to deleting it and replacing with a redirect doesn't need an AFD. -Halo (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm suspecting this is some sort of WP:EVERYTHING argument. Just because Wikipedia contains "All Branches of Knowledge", that does not mean every single topic that only 2 reliable sources can be found about it (or at least what can be included here). I see absolutely no benefit on making such a retarded complaint like this. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 17:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is an argument pointing out the self-evident pointlessness of AFDing an article that will be uncontroversially recreated in a few weeks and months with the same name and the same content, especially when you could have quietly redirected it instead. It's an inane exercise in bureaucracy that doesn't benefit anybody or improve the encyclopaedia. -Halo (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fine. Maybe starting a deletion discussion was unnecessary, and I can get that. However, because this discussion is pointless should not be a reason for keeping. How about suggesting a Redirect next time if you see another deletion discussion like this, dumbass. Thank you for your time. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 22:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because I'm not suggesting a redirect, I'm suggesting that could have been an alternate course of action. I think it should be kept via WP:NOTBURO. There is no good argument for deleting any article that will obviously be recreated in short order with the same content, and since Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there shouldn't be any practical difference between page sections and individual pages anyway. The obsession with deletion on the site is poisonous. -Halo (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fine. Maybe starting a deletion discussion was unnecessary, and I can get that. However, because this discussion is pointless should not be a reason for keeping. How about suggesting a Redirect next time if you see another deletion discussion like this, dumbass. Thank you for your time. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 22:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is an argument pointing out the self-evident pointlessness of AFDing an article that will be uncontroversially recreated in a few weeks and months with the same name and the same content, especially when you could have quietly redirected it instead. It's an inane exercise in bureaucracy that doesn't benefit anybody or improve the encyclopaedia. -Halo (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm suspecting this is some sort of WP:EVERYTHING argument. Just because Wikipedia contains "All Branches of Knowledge", that does not mean every single topic that only 2 reliable sources can be found about it (or at least what can be included here). I see absolutely no benefit on making such a retarded complaint like this. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 17:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please watch the WP:MAJORITY arguments, or otherwise don't vote or comment at all. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 00:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it is. We don't delete any upcoming or future seasons. JJ98 (Talk) 02:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...We don't keep if there are only primary press release about the season. Please, people, I know these are WP:MAJORITY arguments. I wish you guys still understood WP:GNG. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 14:26, 16 August 2013 (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.