Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretty Baby....

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. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 01:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Baby....

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

I know it's a GA, but only a few other individual Eastenders episodes have pages. KMF (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're just as trivial:

I know one is a GA and another is on DYK, but these are still unacceptable fancruft. KMF (talk) 03:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Each of the four articles (and particularly the GAs) has more than enough reliable sources to establish notability. I don't see any policy-based argument for deletion. Layzner (Talk) 05:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Further to Layzner's "...don't see any policy-based argument...", I don't see any policy or guideline anywhere that would call for its deletion. This, while GNG calls for it to be kept. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Editors have worked so hard on each on these so for you to believe they are "unacceptable fancruft" is quite insulting. The fact that one of these articles have reached GA suggests that it is the exact opposite to trivia and has a strong development core. To add, I agree with the above user - there is no policy-based argument for deletion. Soaper1234 - talk 05:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (though should be noted I am the creator of three of the articles). The argument for deletion is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Individual episodes can be notable. — anemone projectors 07:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References establish notability as programs covered in detail by critics and other writers (and shown to be historically important television). Articles on episodes of other TV shows are often kept at AfD, if they are covered in sufficient detail in reliable sources, and it is well established that a TV episode can be notable. Not every EastEnders episode is notable, certainly, but some are, just as not every episode of Dallas is notable, but Who Done It (Dallas) is. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG Matt's talk 10:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - Soar over the threshold of notability. I find the all-or-nothing attitude towards episodes disturbing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with a snow keep close. This article is way over the line in terms of notability. I know the nom is a deletionist, but really, these are decent articles easily passing GNG with poor AfD reasons. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the nominator's claim that the above are examples of "unacceptable fancruft" is unsupported. There is a complete lack of an argument in the nomination. It seems that this is more motivated by the nominator being a a deletionist than anything really concrete or based in policy. Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for Episode 5276 given FourViolas' comment below, as it meets part of the criteria for a speedy keep. Aoba47 (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Ignoring WP:IDONTLIKEIT (fwiw, I don't much either), the argument seems to be "these members of category X pass GNG, but other members of category X do not, therefore we should delete these." That's not even WP:OTHERSTUFF, let alone policy-based. FourViolas (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Episode 5276 needs to be a speedy keep per criterion 6 because, as the nom noted, it is currently linked from the Main Page as a DYK. FourViolas (talk) 16:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: I see no grounds for deletion on policy. DrStrauss talk 17:04, 31 July 2017 (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.