Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gone in the Teeth


 * 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 the whole shebang. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Gone in the Teeth

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete all - individual episodes do not have independent reliable sources that establish notability separate from the series. The only sources are unreliable blogs. The pilot did get some coverage at the A.V. Club site but recent AFDs of Boondocks episodes seen here and here indicate that an AV Club review by itself does not establish notability. The articles also violate WP:PLOT as consisting almost entirely of plot summaries. The episodes are covered in appropriate detail at List of Rubicon episodes and since none of this material is referenced it is unsuitable for merger. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep as in-depth coverage of individual episodes by reliable third party sources is available. That this coverage and critical reaction all need to be integrated into the articles is a matter for tagging, not deletion. I list some example sources below. - Dravecky (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1.01
 * 1.02
 * 1.03
 * 1.04
 * 1.05
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all the above sources demonstrate that the nomination is simply factually inaccurate: there are plenty of sources to meet the GNG for each episode. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all per above sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but propose for merger on talkpage. Notability doesn't seem to be an issue, but WP:NOT is. Tag appropriately and wait how the articles develop. – sgeureka t•c 08:10, 27 August 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.
 * 1.03
 * 1.04
 * 1.05
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all the above sources demonstrate that the nomination is simply factually inaccurate: there are plenty of sources to meet the GNG for each episode. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all per above sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but propose for merger on talkpage. Notability doesn't seem to be an issue, but WP:NOT is. Tag appropriately and wait how the articles develop. – sgeureka t•c 08:10, 27 August 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.
 * 1.05
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all the above sources demonstrate that the nomination is simply factually inaccurate: there are plenty of sources to meet the GNG for each episode. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all per above sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but propose for merger on talkpage. Notability doesn't seem to be an issue, but WP:NOT is. Tag appropriately and wait how the articles develop. – sgeureka t•c 08:10, 27 August 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.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all the above sources demonstrate that the nomination is simply factually inaccurate: there are plenty of sources to meet the GNG for each episode. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep all per above sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but propose for merger on talkpage. Notability doesn't seem to be an issue, but WP:NOT is. Tag appropriately and wait how the articles develop. – sgeureka t•c 08:10, 27 August 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.
 * Keep all per above sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but propose for merger on talkpage. Notability doesn't seem to be an issue, but WP:NOT is. Tag appropriately and wait how the articles develop. – sgeureka t•c 08:10, 27 August 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.