Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pilot (Waterman)


 * 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   delete.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  00:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Pilot (Waterman)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I can't find any sources that meet WP:N Hobit (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This article shouldn't be deleted. Its a Episode of Waterman (series), and Wikipedia should respect it enough to allow this page to stay up.  Buddha Putra - Rahul   (Talk)  06:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll bite. Why is the Waterman (series) notable? It is cited by two dead links. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Being dead or not really doesn't matter. Nor does the current state of the article.  But those links don't seem to be independent and I can't find any acceptable sources for this episode.  I'll admit I couldn't find anything for the series either, but putting up an episode seemed safer in case I was missing some obvious sources (Waterman isn't the easiest word to search for). Hobit (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Well I was trying to understand why User:Rahulmothiya thinks we should respect this page when the animated series itself doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Possibly User:Rahulmothiya can supply a reliable independent source because I haven't been able to find any. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - There is no significant coverage about this specific episode of a web series that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 4 January 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) 01:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 10:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 03:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge into Waterman (series). Whether Waterman (series) should be deleted is a separate discussion unless the AfD is linked in, which it presently is not. Individual episode of an internet only series which does not seem to meet GNG certianly is not enough to keep. This does not mean this will not gain notability at some later point if Waterman becomes more successful. --Falcadore (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – The Waterman (series) already has a brief entry for this episode. There's no evidence of notability or prominence for this production and it doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – doesn't have the sources to meet WP:GNG. Rangoondispenser (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per RJHall. Mention at Waterman (series) is sufficient. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:24, 30 January 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.