Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Eds are Coming, the Eds are Coming


 * 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 redirect to Ed, Edd n Eddy (specials). If it keeps getting turned back into an article ping me and I'll protect it. Jenks24 (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Eds are Coming, the Eds are Coming

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Lack of reliable sources - the existing sources are credits from the production itself, a trivial mention, and a link to a retail site to purchase the production. Suggest converting to a redirect to List of Ed, Edd n Eddy episodes (see update below, content was moved), and restoring the summaries that had existed at that location and which were. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: the suggested redirect target which contained the summary has been removed from the "list of" article, to now be at Ed, Edd n Eddy (specials). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect and maybe protect. There are a lot of Ed Edd n Eddy fanboys who do this kind of thing. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fanboys? Really? - I just thought it would be a solid article, and you can't say that I'm really bad at making articles. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry. The EEnE articles get hit with people who are just rabid about making sure the show's got as much content as possible on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect and protect Gimmick episode with a 'type what I see' unsourced recap, one verbatim network press release disguised as a source on an animation news website, and another one which takes article readers to the show's iTunes page and throws it right into WP:ADVERT territory. Par for the course for an animated series, the one paragraph about it in Ed, Edd n Eddy (specials) should satisfy most interested readers just fine.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This most certainly shouldn't be deleted. I'm getting tired of all this AfD notices when a redirect would serve just fine. Anyway, I guess I support a redirect if third-party sources can't be found.--Gen. Quon (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Response The problem is over-inclusionists have figured out that unless they get a declaration through this process they'll keep re-creating, no matter what. AfD was never intended to be used as a check to solidify a redirect/delete decision, but this seems to be the only way at this time in the process to set an article's direction in stone.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 01:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The nom errs by saying there are no reliable sources rather than no reliable secondary sources, which is really the complaint here. The production itself is a reliable source for its own credits, and its own content generally just as any primary source is. That aside, redirecting could have and should have been attempted first per WP:BRD rather than through WP:AFD (per WP:ATD. QED). postdlf (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Clearly not notable enough for its own article; I've found nothing. J Milburn (talk) 08:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 May 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.