Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scooby Doo and the Spooky Scarecrow


 * 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   no consensus. Closing as no consensus, because the last two keep !votes are not based upon guidelines or policies. The last !vote, qualifying article retention per "the underlying topic is sound" is ambiguous, and doesn't qualify topic notability. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 05:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Scooby Doo and the Spooky Scarecrow

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I found no significant coverage for this Scooby-Doo special. SL93 (talk) 22:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Alt title:


 * Not used to source the article, my WP:BEFORE found DVD Verdict] and The Morton Report. Weak keep and improve accordingly.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 06:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is only a few sentences of coverage. The main topic is a DVD release that this is included on - not this special. SL93 (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The topic being cited need not be the sole topic discussed in a source. That this was discussed in context to the DVD in which it was released is fine. Still "weak keep". Had this Scooby-Doo! project been discussed in the New York Times or Washington Post, then we'd have a strong keep. Thanks.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That is true, but a few sentences does not equal significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep Scooby Doo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.200.131.145 (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per 196.xx who makes a very good point! ... - Joking aside DVDs like these are hard to source ... If we delete this we may aswell wipe out each and every Scooby-Doo article on here as most if not all are poorly sourced. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  12:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs improvement and citation but the underlying topic is sound. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2014 (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.