Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy as a Soup Sandwich


 * 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 no consensus. North America1000 08:38, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Crazy as a Soup Sandwich

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This episode article lacks any references relating to critical impact or reception. There do not seem to be any viable sources through Google searches. TTN (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. /wiae  /tlk  03:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep the episode is notable because its story has inspired a segment in a comic book adaptation and it was written by a famous author. Sro23 (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's your own indicator of notability rather than Wikipedia's indicator of notability. The article needs reliable sources on real world impact and reception. From what I can see, there's pretty much nothing for this episode. Unlike random character articles, TV episodes have a much better chance of establishing notability, so please do feel free to find sources. I'll gladly withdraw the AfD if some are found. The most this needs in its current state would be a disambiguation page pointing to an episode list, comic book list, and Slippage (book). TTN (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep per Sro23. I don't understand why this is even up for deletion. 202.49.183.1 (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Those reasons are insufficient per the notability guidelines. That the story is one of literal thousands written by an author with a long history really isn't anything special without reliable sources commenting on it in some fashion. I doubt even .5% of his stories merit articles on this site. That it was adapted to a comic book is not notable at all unless there are reliable sources talking about that adaptation somehow being special. TTN (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC) Comment I have added more information about its reception and adaptations, with sources. It now has more reviews and sourced content about its impact than most TZ episode articles. Sro23 (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:17, 26 May 2016 (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.