Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Meteor Shower Trilogy

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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Meteor Shower Trilogy[edit]

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

The topic is not notable, and has received very little if any critical review. Nergaal (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep but trim to just three links to relevant episodes - sort of a set index. No need to retell the same stories in different places. East of Borschov 11:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Above seems reasonable, but I would keep a short summary for each episodes, maybe a couple sentences establishing the premise. Zazaban (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but update South Park (season 3) to indicate that these episodes are considered a trilogy. Beyond the short synopsis already present in that article, that's all that's relevant about this article anyway. JulesH (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as I do not beleive the "trilogy" is significant as, say, the two parter Imaginationland, which received a special release as one long story. Mention on the episode/season pages to indicate that these are loosely connected perhaps, but this doesn't seem to have much real world significance. WikiuserNI (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not a single footnote or reference in this article that establishes special notoriety separate from survey articles about South Park seasons or episodes. Honestly "no footnote or reference" is usually enough to argue for the deletion of any article that comes up in AfD, although I grant in this case it's a sub-article of a larger subject. Still, no special significance has been offered or cited, and there it is. -Markeer 19:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JUst to clarify, before nominating, I tried to google the term to add some references but I could only find blogs and various sites that lead me to suggest that this is an in-universe term, with very limited notoriety outside of hardcore fans websites. Nergaal (talk) 19:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability demonstrated in any source, and no sources to support the claims. N2e (talk) 15:54, 4 September 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.