Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lrrreconcilable Ndndifferences


 * 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   delete. Those arguing for keeping this article couldn't counter the WP:CRYSTAL argument. Feel free to recreate the article when reviews and production info are available and can be sourced back to reliable sources. – sgeureka t•c 09:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Lrrreconcilable Ndndifferences

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:CRYSTAL. I could not find any reviews of the episode (as the episode has not aired yet), nor any production history, or much any information at all except who is in the episode, its name, and when it airs. Perhaps the article was created a bit presumptuously. Episode has not received significant coverage in reliable independent sources (WP:GNG) Odie5533 (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete. For that matter, the description happens to be a copyright violation- it's copied directly from. Unless any more information can be added to the article, I suggest deleting it. It can be recreated in a month when there will be more content available for it. --Slon02 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording to deal with the copyright issue. Stardust8212 18:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete I know that back in our "every TV episode is notable" days, an entire Template:Futurama episodes worth of these was created, long before the series was revived and long before there were entertainment wikis, and I have a feeling that on August 26 at 10:00 (9 central!) people will be typing away with their observations, but I notice that there's not yet an article [here]. All of the articles in the template need to be considered for a move over to a place that is more tolerant of original research and doesn't worry about real world notability.  Mandsford 21:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Futurama Wiki does indeed have a page here. No useful content there though, and the Infosphere also has nothing. Given the current lack of information about the episode, it's not ready for an article just yet. Reach Out to the Truth 03:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Guys you're have nothing to do? Wait until August 27. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SWFlash (talk • contribs) 12:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Will this episode get significant coverage in reliable independent sources?  I don't know.  I don't know what they'll say about it. I think I agree that every television series that airs on a major network is notable, but I'm pretty sure I don't agree that every episode of every television series is notable.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There will be as much coverage as the other articles when the episode airs. Seems entirely ridiculous to not have an article for one episode, but have an article for every other. Maybe it's premature, but I see little gain in deleting it, only to bring it back in a couple of weeks. It's just extra work, unnecessary strain, that's going to be undone anyway. -- .: Alex  :.  08:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an upcoming episode that is airing THIS MONTH. It's not far away and there will soon be plenty of information about it as a result. There's no question of whether or not it's a real episode or anything like that. A lot of people will want to know that the upcoming episode contains the guest stars listed on the page -that alone is surely reason enough to keep it and add to it as more information is available rather than deleting it and creating a new page in 20 days.Omega cyber turnip (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have just added some information to the article. It's now far larger than articles such as next week's episode: A Clockwork Origin -and nobody complained about that article. Omega cyber turnip (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems like deletion for the sake of it. Yes, you can make a valid argument to remove it for now, but I fail to see how that helps the encyclopedia or anyone else. Article contains verifiable information and will clearly receive plenty of additional coverage to demonstrate notability in the very near future. Perhaps it shouldn't technically have been created quite yet, but as it's here it may as well stay there. ~ mazca  talk 10:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Article fails WP:CRYSTAL. Verifiability does not imply notability. If its notable in the future, the article can then be created. 'Skeleton' articles are not needed. Aditya Ex Machina  00:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Keepers are all saying it will be notable; how do they know? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:00, 8 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.