Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bad Seeds (TV series)


 * 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 Nicktoons. We really have no consensus here, with deletes, redirects, and keeps making good points. It looks like the arguments of Tokyogirl79 are the strongest, and by redirecting we keep the edit history intact, so that once sources become available, we can always restore the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Bad Seeds (TV series)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. Google Search brings up results mostly from primary sources or associated ones. Ethically (Yours) 07:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:TVSHOW; Variety and IMDB are sufficient RS for a stub on a just-launching program DocumentError (talk) 07:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Nicktoons. IMDb isn't really a good source for notability. All we have so far is that the show has been picked up for 26 episodes. It might actually get animated and put on TV, it might not. The thing about shows in general, especially animated shows, is that you can never guarantee that they'll get on air. Sometimes the shows never actually make it on air despite an order for episodes. Sometimes some of the episodes actually get made before the show is canned. The problem is that any future notability is all speculation at this point. All of the current coverage boils down to "Nickelodeon ordered this and it's going to get 26 episodes". We need more than that to show that it merits anything other than a mention on the page for upcoming Nicktoons. If/when the show airs and gets more coverage, we can always un-redirect it and add the new sources. Until then, this should only be a redirect, as it hasn't actually aired yet and the episodes don't seem to have actually been created. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Basically this is the same argument I made at Articles for deletion/Breadwinners (TV series). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   11:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I can see the benefit of consolidating relatively brief articles about pending series on a collective page like List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Nickelodeon, maintaining the edit history of the articles. I have some qualms about how those pending series are currently listed on that page: there should be room for a small amount of basic, reliably-sourced information (creator, concept, timing) about those series  that don't have their own pages. In any event, deletion is not the best alternative.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We could probably set up a bit of a template for that. I'd do it, but I'm awful with templates and I've got a whole slate of articles that I've been meaning to clean up, as another editor created bare bones articles w/o any inline cites. (sigh) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 02:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 02:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 02:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep: per WP:TVSHOW Notable and there are sufficient Reliable Sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: The problem with the argument of there being enough RS is that the sources only say that the show was greenlit. There has been no actual confirmation that the episodes are in the process of being made. It's actually incredibly, incredibly common for someone to order episodes and then never have those episodes make it to fruition. I think it's very premature for this to merit its own article when there has been nothing other than a bunch of sources that all say one same thing: that Nick picked the show up. That's really not enough to show a depth of coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Tokyogirl79. There is not (yet) enough material in Reliable Sources to justify an independent article.  If (when) it airs that will change, but it hasn't yet.  Eluchil404 (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.