Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Ed, Edd n Eddy and protect. There is a valid argument for at least preventing creation of this for some time, as significant coverage isn't spontaneous, but it is a likely search term. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Completely unsourced, this article has no citations or references. This article was previously deleted due to lack of citations. I doubt that the television movie is notable, the article currently fails WP:GNG and WP:NF. JJ98 (Talk) 18:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. I agree with Treelo's rationale in the last AFD: "a redirect can just be turned straight back into the article with a click of an undo link." If this were just redirected, some drooling fanboy would just undo it and turn it back into an article and then we'd be doing the infinite loop all over again. It's plainly obvious that there are no secondary sources at all — heck, not even primary sources! — so this is about as non-notable as can be. What's more, the Ed, Edd n Eddy article already mentions it sufficiently. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect and partial merge to Ed, Edd n Eddy where it is already mentioned and has its notability as the official end of a notable series. Salting is a bit presumptive, as films, even crappy cartoon films, often get retrospective coverage... and a proper article might indeed be one day possible.  And declaring potential Wikipedia editors as "drooling fanboys" is a more than a little bitey...  so let's not assume bad faith toward nor denigrate a future author, okay?   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge per MichaelQSchmidt. Salting is certainly not appropriate, this is a real movie and a legitimate search term.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2010 (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.