Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Down
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
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 delete. Sandstein 10:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Deep Down (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)
Deprodded with an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale which we all know isn't valid. This has been nothing but miles and miles of unsourced fancruft, and I see no valid sources forthcoming. Rather than mass-AFD the episodes, I felt it best to try just one first. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On the whole I'm inclined to agree with you that the majority of these episodes probably don't meet the notability guidelines. I removed the prod as I felt that afd is a more apt venue for articles of this nature. Though having said that, I really, really, really don't care if this article is deleted or kept. Rotten regard Softnow 20:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, the article is badly sourced. Seems to be a standard, as a lot of them have only two: Imdb.com and TV.com (broken). But a quick search on google with Angel+"Deep Down" gives more than 5 mio. hits. I've watched the show, but I have never attributed to a single episode article. If you want to get rid off them (maybe I would !vote for you), don't start with one of the geeks favorites, i.e. Buffy, Angel, Lost, TBBT or Dr. Who. Their fans have a high affinity to the net, means millions of sources for every single quote in it. It's like writing Star Trek is not notable in the Guideline, try it ... --Ben Ben (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LOSE and WP:OSE? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Dismounting my high horse of indifference to actually venture an opinion. This article clearly doesn't meet the general notability guidelines. I could find no indication that this episode has been significantly covered in reliable secondary sources. The content would be better suited to imdb or a fan Wiki. Articles already exist that cover each season of this series, I think it highly likely that all (bar a very few) individual episodes would fail to meet the notability guidelines. Rotten regard Softnow 20:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, not notable TV episode. --Shorthate (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2012 (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.