Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Escape from Cluster Prime (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   no consensus. Cirt (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Escape from Cluster Prime
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable TV special. Plot summary and trivia, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above comments and unverifiable. I don't even think it passes WP:Notability. Hairy  Perry  17:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep What's not encyclopedic about a television movie aired on one of the major children's television channels? Plus the show it's based on is already in the encyclopedia, so at worst I would think it should be merged. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Apparently nominated for an Emmy. RayAYang (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep because it passed its last AFD with a keep decision only 6 weeks ago. Articles can't be renominated in such a short period of time; it threatens the integrity of the whole AFD system. 23skidoo (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment from uninvolved admin Speedy keep only applies in cases of a bad faith nomination. Six weeks is plenty of time for consensus to change! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 *  Weak keep - needs better sourcing, but was apparently nominated for an Emmy, which is a fairly strong claim to notability. Terraxos (talk) 03:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing my comment, according to IMDB it actually won one. That's good enough for me. Terraxos (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops. Don't see how I missed that. Silly me. RayAYang (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not present real world context through significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Winning an Emmy only gives us one sentence, we can't call that significant coverage. Jay32183 (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I wasn't aware that this had already been nominated, nor was I aware of the Emmy nomination. The Emmy nomination says something, but it's still not enough to go on given that we have virtually no other sources. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment To delete something that was Emmy-nominated would hurt, but I know from working on Emmy-winning stuff (episodes) that an Emmy nom is no guarantee at all that real-world information for improvement exists. I suggest to withdraw and open a merge proposal. – sgeureka t•c 15:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. We're in an AFD with a deletion reasoning supported by policy and guideline with no counter-argument being supported by policy or guideline. If there aren't sources, there aren't sources. There isn't anything to merge, because there aren't sources. Jay32183 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The plot summary is technically sourced by the episode itself, making the plot summary mergeable. At least that is what I was referring to. But I see there is already a short plot summary in List of My Life as a Teenage Robot episodes (which I didn't know when I commented), so merging is not strictly necessary. – sgeureka t•c 20:49, 25 November 2008 (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.