Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home Alone (The Inbetweeners)


 * 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 List of The Inbetweeners episodes. After three relisting, this seems to be the consensus. (non-admin closure) LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Home Alone (The Inbetweeners)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contains no encylopedic content and unlikely to ever do so Indiasummer95 (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 26.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  17:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment It now contains encyclopedic content, i.e. the opinion of critics. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes, merging any relevant content. Opinion of critics is insufficent to salvage what is essentiall a plotdump. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Redirect to List of The Inbetweeners episodes Most of the information is already there and the article is only a plot summary at best WP:PLOT. Mkdw talk 10:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Episode received multiple reviews in reliable sources. Therefore it's notable. The article is currently biased in favor of plot summary, but that can be fixed by editing, and therefore isn't grounds for deletion. The only relevant issue is: are there independent reliable sources about this episode, and the answer is yes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless this is not run-of-the-mill coverage it does not necessarily seem to indicate notability for a standalone article. Mkdw talk 07:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2013 (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.