Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teen sitcom


 * 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   keep. No consensus to delete but I've added tags for the problems mentioned in this discussion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Teen sitcom

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

Filled with original research, POV and large sections that aren't actually about sitcoms. If all these were cut, you'd have no article left to improve. Therefore I recommend deletion Mgm|(talk) 10:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  15:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree! The article actually does have good content if you really read through it rather than just skimping through it. It mentions the history of the teen sitcoms, some of the first ones, and a description on what a teen sitcom is. And besides, there is an article on teen dramas, why not there be an article on teen sitcoms. I say keep the article --Mr. Comedian (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Original research means someone put in personal opinions or drew illogical conclusions. Without reliable sources, it's impossible to tell which, if any, of the material is good. I'm not arguing that teen sitcoms shouldn't have an article. I'm arguing this isn't the article we should have because it violates policies. - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay I understand what you are saying, even though I do feel that the article's content is accurate. anyway, why not just edit it with reliable sources? --Mr. Comedian (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Obviously notable subject.  All unreferenced articles are by definition OR.  No big deal. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is really no need to delete it, and even though it has no original research, whoever created the article didn't seem to use personel opinions, instead he or she seemed to use common sense. The article does not have any wrong material in it anyway, so why not just find some stuff to back the article up. --Mr. Comedian (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite. It's about a notable subject and keeping this version doesn't hurt anybody.  That being said, it should be cited, cleaned up, and expanded.  Them  From  Space  01:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep since Google Books and Google News searches indicate that this is a term that's in actual use. Now, Comedian's comments on the content of the article are either wishful thinking or something else: the article IS entirely OR, without a single reference, and all of its needs to be cut or at least cropped. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 22 March 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.