Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicktoons Summer Beach House (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   Delete. Merging non notable things is not really a solution. Merging is a good solution for things that have some notability but not sufficient to meet WP:N. But despite being deleted once before (the first article I mean), having existed for years, and being listed at AfD, the ARS page and the NICK project for a week, not one independent source has been provided for any of these. There is no deadline, but there is a burden on those wanting to keep things in any form when challenged, and no one has even started on this. Fram (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nicktoons Summer Beach House
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This, and all of the following nominations of Nickelodeon program blocks are nothing more than unsourced schedules and branding efforts that recieved no coverage outside of Nickelodeon as the primary source, and are not well-remembered by anyone beyond the original editors of these articles. In the few articles that have sources, they're just links to TV.com and user-generated summaries that just say 'this show aired here and there'. The lead article itself was re-created after a previous deletion vote, much to my surprise. Note that I am not asking for deletion of blocks such as Nick in the Afternoon or U-Pick Live, as those had original content and hosts of their own that ran for more than a select period of months. This nominaton covers blocks which just had bare connections of continuity, lasted less than a season or a programming quarter, and were unremarkable outside of the rest of the regular schedule.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are unsourced summaries of Nickelodeon schedules and unremarkable programming blocks:
 * (actually a redirect to the network article)
 * (this nomination is for a program on Canada's unrelated YTV; however I have included it as meeting the same problems as these Nick articles)  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (this nomination is for a program on Canada's unrelated YTV; however I have included it as meeting the same problems as these Nick articles)  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (this nomination is for a program on Canada's unrelated YTV; however I have included it as meeting the same problems as these Nick articles)  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (this nomination is for a program on Canada's unrelated YTV; however I have included it as meeting the same problems as these Nick articles)  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (this nomination is for a program on Canada's unrelated YTV; however I have included it as meeting the same problems as these Nick articles)  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (this nomination is for a program on Canada's unrelated YTV; however I have included it as meeting the same problems as these Nick articles)  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (this nomination is for a program on Canada's unrelated YTV; however I have included it as meeting the same problems as these Nick articles)  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (this nomination is for a program on Canada's unrelated YTV; however I have included it as meeting the same problems as these Nick articles)  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (this nomination is for a program on Canada's unrelated YTV; however I have included it as meeting the same problems as these Nick articles)  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (this nomination is for a program on Canada's unrelated YTV; however I have included it as meeting the same problems as these Nick articles)  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (this nomination is for a program on Canada's unrelated YTV; however I have included it as meeting the same problems as these Nick articles)  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (this nomination is for a program on Canada's unrelated YTV; however I have included it as meeting the same problems as these Nick articles)  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Why can't they all be merged into a single article such as Nickelodeon programming blocks? Calling cruft in the nomination falls directly under WP:ITSCRUFT and has a chocolaty layer of scrumptious WP:WHOCARES (also this is kind of helpful). If I were to help you with the merge would you consider withdrawing this afd?  ZabMilenko 08:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have taken out the mention of cruft per your request. This has been a long-simmering problem though. None of these articles have any sources to speak of. Many of them are just schedule rundowns that meet WP:Not a TV Guide, were created at the time of their promotion and then just left to wither on from there. Nickelodeon is infamous for having these types of promotional efforts that go on for three months and then either just wither out or make way for the next 'theme of the (season of the year)'. I think it is time to address this, and as I said, sources need to be found for any of these articles to even earn a weak keep. As it is, they all have only primary sourcing and poor-quality writing and would need serious help to meet the basic standards of a stub. Further on, these articles have very few incoming links into them if you go by their 'what links here' pages. There has been no effort to connect these further to Nickelodeon articles at all, suggesting a lack of cohesiveness or theme to Nickelodeon block articles.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 10:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright fair enough. You are hitting many arguments at WP:ATA but I do understand what you are aiming for.  I think a merge with List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon will be appropriate for just the sourced and notable stuff, everything else just redirect to the same place and unlink where appropriate.  ZabMilenko 11:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all as almost none of this could ever possibly be sourced ( and Nickelodeon has mostly sucked since they got rid of The Angry Beavers  ). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * TPH, are you actually saying we include or exclude articles on the basis of the intrinsic artistic quality of the work? DGG (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge/Listify as appropriate. This is an extremely well-known network so there is little doubt industry sources do exist. This bigger issue, IMHO, is does each entity block actually need its own article and does that help organize this information. Someone more familiar with the programming would likely do a better job than I but looking at all the information as a whole it would seem some logical merging may serve our readers best. Two or three well organized articles may be better than this current set-up. -- Banj e  b oi   00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I put out a request a week ago to WP:NICK for their help about this, but no one has responded to my request for comment on this AfD.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge These perennial marketing names for scheduling gimmicks are not particularly notable. Are any of them written about in a capacity other than merely noting their existence? Gigs (talk) 19:36, 3 June 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.