Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three Is a Magic Number


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:51, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Three Is a Magic Number

 * – ( View AfD View log )

For policy, just going to quote WP:N here. For reasons grounded in reality, it's a magnet for trivia, and I doubt that any references or notability can be presented. Charles D. Ward (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Reading the article in its current state, I see what you mean about being a trivia magnet; it does appear that many of the song's cover versions/samples/later uses are mentioned in reliable sources - Blind Melon, De La Soul , Jack Johnson , Jack Black , Jeff Buckley and TV3 . Non-trivial coverage for the song/episode in these sources  addresses its origins as well as its impact ("the resulting video worked so well that it attracted the attention of...Michael Eisner, then the head of ABC's children programming"; "It became so popular that subsequent episodes were added..."; "That song helped to change children's television"; it "launched a Saturday morning phenomenon". Overall, I believe enough verifiable material exists on the topic to meet WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS.  Gongshow  Talk 21:44, 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, Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  05:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 13.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  01:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep pilot animation for this highly notable and influential series, it deserves its own article. may be hard to find online references, but there are going to be print references, particularly in animation and educational journals. lots of articles are trivia/vandalism magnets, thats normally only a reason for diligence, not deletion (unless the subject is a barely notable living person and the trivia/vandalism is libelous to them).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:26, 13 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.