Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster Sunday School

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 to Nanna's Cottage. Deleting under redirect per Copyvio. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Sunday School[edit]

Delete: extremely short & short-lived (entire production run appears to have consisted of only 108 min of programming) and largely unnoticed Christian television program. No relevant GoogleBooks hits, no reliable GoogleNews or Google hits. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is not even a claim to Notability in the wiki sense. Springnuts (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nanna's Cottage. If it were on a non-Christian network I doubt there would ba any argument. JASpencer (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ... I am ProDding Nanna's Cottage - equally NN! Springnuts (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect I highly disagree with the PROD for the parent article (which has since been reversed). "Largely unnoticed" is definitely subjective; many mainstream audiences would think it doesn't meet the threshold, but since it has a slot on the United States's largest Christian network and several other networks, the notability of Nanna's Cottage is a lock. In these cases, especially for Christian programming, note that not everything has to have the reach of Blues's Clues or CSI to score notability. As for this article, too much info for a two-minute segment. Nate • (chatter) 20:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"largely unnoticed" of course means by reliable third party sources -- the benchmark for judging notability. It is not "definitely subjective". Even were the standard instead viewership, it is unlikely that "the United States's largest Christian network and several other networks" would compete with the major networks (let alone including their programs greater international viewership). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Religious networks often don't even consider mainstream networks at all as competition. They try to attract mainstream audiences for their shows, but I can pretty much say with certainty TBN doesn't care what is 'hot' on either Nick, Cartoon Network, or CW4Kids; they have a remit to serve the needs of their religious mission and raise donations to spread their ministry to stay on the air. Because of this, they don't get the coverage that most networks do. Thus notability is a tough nut to crack, and we have fewer sources to vet as a consequence. But they can be found. Nate • (chatter) 11:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't "a tough nut to crack" -- notability is largely equivalent to third party coverage. No coverage = no notability, no matter how 'worthy' individual editors might consider the topic to be. And I would remind you that it was you who introduced the comparison to mainstream shows, not myself. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article has notability concerns that I don't see it meeting. Tavix (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Nanna's Cottage. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G12 copyvio, article is plagiarized from [1]. Redirect, of course, will accomplish the same purpose of erasing this idiotic article. Mandsford (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not -- the "enwiki" in the URL would appear to indicate that that page is the copy. However, as with all uncited material in multiple locations, it is hard (without careful examination of edit & wayback histories) to determine which is a copy of which. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment That's a WikiMirror of this article on a Russian site. There's no G12 going on, they copied it from us. Nate • (chatter) 05:26, 3 February 2009 (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.