Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show (3rd 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   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

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

This is a procedural listing from a recently closed deletion review. The userspace draft under review was considered substantially different than previously deleted versions (to avoid CSD G4 and allow unprotection), but there were still substantial concerns expressed in the DRV over the quality of sourcing (e.g., trivial mentions, non-independence) and the notability. As this is a procedural listing, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes I'm still not seeing any good sources in this iteration of the article, which remains 60% of a long plot summary already concisely described in the redirect target proposed in one paragraph. The best source is the USPTO filing, and even that really can't tell us anything except it has its LoC filing. TVBytheNumbers has been a questionable source for television and ratings articles in the past because of site staff synthesis of ratings, the iTunes link shouldn't be there (WP:ADVERT), source #7 from Animation World describes "big ratings" but doesn't give the actual numbers, and #4 is an unfiltered Cartoon Network press release which cannot be counted on for neutrality. Credits cites are WP:OR. We have given more than enough time (three years) for this to develop into at least a good stub and it can't get there with these sources. Per the result at Articles for deletion/The Eds are Coming, the Eds are Coming (an hour-long episode of this series), a short plot summary in the "List of" article should suffice for most general readers.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 16:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak keep per improved sourcing since last AFD, or at least redirect and protect again... but this time to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes just as this was similarly redirected after AFD #2. Please see the recent DRV, the result there being to allow the redirect to be unprotected and the article returned to AFD for new consideration. My opinion is that notability enough for a separate article is still pretty thin, but I wil grant that it is better than last time this was here. As the original redirect target has been removed through editing and no longer exists, this new redirect option makes sense to me if not kept.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Could this be used?: Link. Though I don't get how these ratings work. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 17:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No... as it tells us at the top of the article that it is a press release.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Don't see why it should be deleted. Highly sourced information here. See deletion review. TBrandley 03:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, deleted in previous AfD as unsourced, now this concern was adressed... and the article looks quite fine for a keep, IMHO. Cavarrone (talk) 09:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep No good reason to delete this; it's informative and like many entries it will be updated and improved. Keep this please.Gamnos (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. The Reception section material sourced from TV by the Numbers—all but the first sentence—is a nearly word-for-word copy of the original, a clear violation of WP:COPYVIO. A redirect would also be okay, so long as any Reception material incorporated into the destination article undergoes heavy trimming and extensive rephrasing. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Copyvio of a single sentence should carry a deletion? I think it is an easily addressable problem, and you yourself could fix the sentence so to make it more different from the original (sadly I cannot as I am not English native and the final result would be surely poor). Cavarrone (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it was the entire section except for the first short sentence, which was from two different sources that I didn't check. Or, to put it another way, this is about a third of the non-plot material in the article, which was already (as noted by others) plot-heavy. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, it is not one sentence but two sentences... that does not change the point that this issue is easily fixable by everyone that is enough confident in English to slighty change the construction/wording of these two sentences. Cavarrone (talk) 21:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think your attitude toward copyvio is a bit too cavalier. And, I've just discovered, it's worse than I thought: the bulk of the first paragraph of Production has some nearly identical phrases to the ToonZone source. That leaves precious little that isn't either Plot or close paraphrase. As such, I'm changing my Delete to Strong Delete. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. This article isn't ready yet, but that can be changed.  JC  Talk to me My contributions 22:49, 21 August 2012 (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.