Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babies in Toyland

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. jj137 ^♠ 18:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Babies in Toyland[edit]

Prod removed. Is an individual Rugrats episode inherently notable? Daniel Case (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non-notable television episode. We can't fill up all of Wikipedia with nonsense trivial OR about every television episode -- which is better left up to web-sites such as tv.com and others. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep if it can be cleaned up and referenced. There seems to be no clear consensus on what shows have individual episodes on Wikipedia (there are quite a few) and Rugrats is/was a popular series. --Sajendra (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Perhaps I should have checked whether any other Rugrats episodes had articles. --Sajendra (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Right now its a personal description of an episode with no sources. I generally don't mind episodes, when there is a valid source and/or notability established. I'm not seeing that here. MBisanz 05:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there were more Rugrats episode articles, an argument would be made for Keep. But there is only one episode with a page linked to List of Rugrats episodes, (note that the article in question is not linked from there,) so there is not enough justfication to keep this one article. -- RoninBK _{T C} 07:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#PLOT:. The prod was removed by a disruptive anon editor.--Pmedema (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. I don't think an individual Rugrats episode should be notable or have third-party sources about it.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, don't you mean "without third-party sources"? Daniel Case (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable episode. It is also written in a non-encyclopedic way. so Delete it...Ohmpandya (Talk) 17:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:35, 31 December 2007 (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.