Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abra-Catastrophe!

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 redirect. There is (weak) consensus that the article can not be kept without sources and should be deleted or redirected. There is no consensus on whether it should be deleted or redirected, and I close this as redirect just for the case it can be easier restored once reliable sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abra-Catastrophe![edit]

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

This film has no sources, no reception from ratings or reviews, all nothing but an non-notable film and television episode. JJ98 (Talk) 19:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep per topic meeting just notability criteria. I believe the nominator intended to write that he wished a deletion because the "article" had no sourcing, but had he looked, he would have found topic sources DO exist. With a little looking I quickly found, among others, a lengthy DVD Talk review and a New York Times mini review. Sure, this film is not at the same level of notability of Star Wars films, but we might consider keeping this and simply tagging it for sourcing and cleanup through regular editing... or at the very worst consider a soft redirect to The Fairly OddParents. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to episode list. The DVDTalk review seems to be the only reliable source. The New York Times piece is not a review - it's just a copy of the AllMovie summary. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect It should be redirected to the main episode list. Mouseinphilly (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this at all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. It just needs sources, which are abundant online. Zach Vega (talk to me) 16:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "clearly notable" and then dumping us at a Google search isn't a very good way to prove notability exists... Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect unless significant coverage can be established. TTN (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Fairly OddParents. I searched and found nothing more than that already stated above (which isn't enough for WP:GNG). -- Trevj (talk) 11:15, 1 October 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.