Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cartoon (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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Cartoon
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Relisting per Deletion review/Log/2010 August 17. I abstain. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep sufficient third-party coverage. Failing that, a merge to a seasonwide article might be appropriate, but there's absolutely no policy basis for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - These can be improved enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * keep I find the book to be a strong primary source (it includes a plot summary in addition to how it is used in the article) and I find the other sources to be on the weaker side, but still enough to meet WP:N by a fair bit. Hobit (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep due to substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources such as this. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per apparent consensus at DRV; no point in singling out one episode for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - One of the seminal shows of its time, part of popular culture, and there are WP users come here for articles such as this. Carrite (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Significant coverage in multiple sources: I've just added several new references.    . The article can be further expanded even just from those sources.  Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – I thought Hullaballoo Wolfowitz said it better in the DRV: There's "no reason to delete a single article from a comprehensive set unless there's cause shown to re-examine the global question".  Also, the following is stated under WP:OSE -
 * "When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia. For instance:


 * * Each Star Trek series has an episode list and individual articles for each episode: List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes, List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes, etc. show that episodes all have their own articles. Thus it is reasonable to expect that, using these as precedent for content inclusion, that Star Trek: Enterprise can also have an episode list as well as articles on each individual episode, as there is no fundamental difference between the various Star Trek series."


 * More so for individual episodes of the same series, ie, Seinfeld Rainjar (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - clearly satisfies WP:N. meshach (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Article is sourced and is one of thousands of sitcom episode related articles all over wikipedia. A precident has already been established to create articles about sitcom episodes, regardless if there is a policy or guideline for them.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge all non-notable episodes - There isn't enough coverage in reliable, third-party sources to build an article and satisfy WP:N. Most (of not all) coverage was trivia mentions in articles about other subjects. This episode along with the rest for this season can be covered better in Seinfeld (season 9). d'oh! talk 04:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As Ron Ritzman pointed out in the DRV "Wouldn't a better approach be to start a discussion at Talk:Seinfeld or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Seinfeld about expanding the episode list articles to include short summaries and then turning most episode articles into redirects?", rather than seeking to delete an individual article, leaving a gap in what would otherwise be a complete set? To seek a merger of articles on other individual episodes in a AfD relating to just one episode leaves articles on other episodes exposed without a broader discussion Rainjar (talk) 14:47, 30 August 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.