Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terror Television American Series 1970–1999


 * 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. Sources could be used to develop the article, of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Terror Television American Series 1970–1999

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable book, PROD denied —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ? By WP standards, as applied commonly, a book by a notable author and published by a notable publishing house should be notable. By the standards as they should be applied a book about which secondary sources have said nothing beyond its existence should not be notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Found two medium-length reviews, in Reference & User Services Quarterly and Booklist, both respected publications. Just enough to meet notability guideline. No idea what "Chiller Magazine" is can't find to determine reliability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's your typical horror magazine akin to Rue Morgue, but far far more under the radar. I remember seeing this around when I was a teenager and it was the epitome of a cult magazine. It's one of those things that is listed in various books as a source for the interviews they managed to snag, but never really got any mainstream love. I'd consider it to be a RS because it's held in relatively good esteem (those were just a few of the sources I found under GBooks), but it's just unknown enough of a quantity to where someone could argue the point.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep sufficient evidence from the two previous commentators.  DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 9 October 2012 (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.