Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twist of Kate

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 Kate Gosselin. And delete. Sandstein 11:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twist of Kate[edit]

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

I request that this article Twist of Kate be merged. The show has only been mentioned a few times since October 2010 and Kate Plus 8 was cancelled in September of this year. The article itself didn't have much in it either and it had only one source. With this information, I conclude that this article can be merged with Kate Gosselin or Kate Plus 8. Thebirdlover (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete As I understand it this is a programme that was proposed, but never actually existed. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Proposed pilots should never get articles, and series shouldn't until they have press a couple months in advance. Clearly, this was a proposed pilot which went nowhere and there's no need for a merge. Nate • (chatter) 01:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kate Gosselin. We should add info to her article about the show, but at most this should be a redirect to her page. I can actually see people potentially typing this in as a search query, so a redirect would probably be best in this situation. (But the article itself should absolutely be deleted. The only recent sources I found was an article that asked if the pilot had been cancelled.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I would be fine with tokyogirl's suggestion. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2011 (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.