Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pleasant Little Kingdom

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasant Little Kingdom[edit]

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

This title is the wrong title of Desperate Housewives. It fails to meet the criteria of WP:ORG. AdamDeanHall (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I don't understand the nomination at all. This article purports to be about an upcoming episode of Desperate Housewives which will air next month. If the title is wrong, what is the correct title? And why can't the page just be moved to the correct title? And what does WP:ORG have to do with this? Television episodes aren't organizations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from the fact that the nomination doesn't make much sense, per Metropolitan90, every other episode appears to have its own article, so this one probably ought to as well. Incidentally, I don't think this AFD has been set up properly - there seems to be no notice on the article. I shall see if I can fix it.--Korruski^Talk 10:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, All the other episodes of this series have their own articla, many of which were created by the very user who nominated this article for deletion. I wonder if that user is just upset because someone else created this article before he could? BurienBomber (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per nominator's past indications of ownership over articles dealing with Desperate Housewives; title is sourced here, nomination rationale is incorrect. Nate • (chatter) 23:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now for the spanner in the works. The nominator's rationale, which takes some decoding I have to say (Mind you, I had to prod the nominator into even giving a rationale at all.), appears to be that there's nothing known about the subject yet, not even its name. In other words: There's no verifiable information to be had on this subject. Mrschimpf's purported source falls down when one notices the handy little "edit this" hyperlink next to it. I'm tempted to go in and edit it to change the episode title to "Mrschimpf's tomato fondling paradise" just so that the next person who wants to register a "keep" opinion is confused as to why everyone before them seems to be thinking that this article is correct and should be kept. ☺ Reliable sources, people! Uncle G (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Edit this" is in regards to the episode summary (which currently does not exist because networks don't release that until a few weeks before), not the title itself. That cannot be changed at all by the site except for an administrator on that site. Nate • (chatter) 02:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The episode title has been confirmed by an ABC press release and here at TV.com [1]. BurienBomber (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And here is said confirmation from ABC's press site. Nate • (chatter) 02:45, 10 November 2010 (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.