Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kidney in Town (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The result was nomination withdrawn by original nominator. Non-admin close. JDDJS (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

New Kidney in Town
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article was previous redirected due to lack of information. Now without any new references, it was recreated with just a brief plot summary that can be in Family Guy (season 9) JDDJS (talk) 05:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know when I have lost. I withdraw my nomination JDDJS (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The same reference provides the plot information. This information was previously unavailable, and was the only reason given by the two users who voted to redirect the article to the main list. Additionally, your citing of WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevent, as this article does nothing to violate any of the guidelines given. Simply adding redundant references confirming the same information is not necessary, and the deletion of an article that will be expanded regardless is inessential. Gage (talk) 05:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You missed the entire point. The plot summary is in the season 9 article. There is no info on the page that can't be found on the season 9 page. Plot summary alone is never enough to justify an entire article about an episode of a tv show, JDDJS (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You miss the entire point of the article. It doesn't exist to have two sentences in a plot summary, it exists to be expanded. Information is always released leading up to the episodes's air date, and it is intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge that. Simply deleting or redirecting the article to save face for a week is the true definition of ignorance. Gage (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The episode doesn't air till like 3 weeks. JDDJS (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Information isn't released in three weeks. Gage (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

*Speedy redirect to Family Guy (season 9). This article has been redirected before, now this time the article has no sources. JJ98 (Talk) 05:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has the same amount of sources it previously had, with the new information being referenced by the same exact source as was previously available. You made no mention of references in your last anowball attempt to redirect the article, and your involvement in this project is, and has always been, unwelcome. Gage (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Gage, you are making this way too personal. JDDJS (talk) 05:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done nothing of the such. Gage (talk) 05:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I like you and all Gage, but I have to agree with JDDJS, plus your comment s/he or JJ98 is unwelcome in WP:FG is not cool...having said that I now think a...


 * Keep is in order, due to a plot summary, to me that is enough for a stub, especially when the episode airs in 3 weeks C T J F 8 3  chat 12:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Same reasons already mentioned above. Sergecross73   msg me   21:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. JJ98 (Talk) 21:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: JDDJS, please stop being disruptive with the multiple nominations for this article. This is your second in under 4 days.  Let some time pass and withdraw. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 01:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Um it's not disruptive. The first one ended in a redirect. Then Gage recreated the article anyway. JDDJS (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Still disruptive. Four days after the previous discussion, this could have and should have waited.  Withdraw and if you feel it needs to be addressed, take it to ANI. -  Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 19:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, per everything above + common sense. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:31, 20 December 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.