Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mirror, mirror (Desperate Housewives)


 * 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   Speedy Delete - two reasons, G4 per Articles_for_deletion/Mirror,_Mirror_(Desperate_Housewives) and G12 (copyvio from ) Black Kite 10:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Mirror, mirror (Desperate Housewives)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article had originally been deleted - several users had come to the agreement that it wasn't notable, and the deleted article had been semi-protected to prevent recreation from .. a certain user. Now that the protection is gone, the user has subsequently felt the need to recreate the article. The article has no notability, no significance, and doesn't follow any manual of style. -- A talk / contribs 02:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Episodes of popular TV series like Desperate Housewives are inherently notable.  The article could probably stand some improvement, but I don't see how this meets the criteria for deletion.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  03:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Per Sarilox—the only substantive part of the article is a copyvio, without that, it certainly meets the deletion guidelines.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  15:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt permanently- Does this qualify for speedy deletion as a recreation of a previously deleted article? Since it fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N it's pretty clear that there's been no attempt to rectify the problems that led to it being deleted the first time. Reyk  YO!  05:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: this individual episode still does not demonstrate notability as it did first time around. JamesBurns (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Reyk. It appears that this article was recreated under a slightly different capitalization. Perhaps both should be salted. The plot has also been copied from ABC. Sarilox (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite true. Beforehand, it was "Mirror, Mirror". -- A talk / contribs 15:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per CSD G12. Keep per Jake. This probably has a potential of becoming a good article, but the plot summary should definitely be trimmed. —Admiral Norton (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails our notability guidelines and is a copyvio as well, so might be speedy deletable per CSD G12.  tempo di valse  [☎]  00:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * SPeedy delete this bad faith recreation.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2009 (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.