Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFO Kidnapped


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. In order to Keep an article, you need to present policy-based responses to the nomination statement. Feel free to create a Redirect from this page title but no Redirect target article was suggested here to make that an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 02:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

UFO Kidnapped

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022. PROD was removed and a lot of references added, but they are all database sites, youtube and other video sites, as well as forums. None of them pass the reliable source test needed to pass notability requirements. Donald D23  talk to me  02:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Keep or Redirect, as it is famous Nickelodeon production, even though the sources that are available may not be what is considered to be the best to use. If it can't be kept, then it should be redirected as to let this all go to waste would be a shame. Also this was once a red link as someone really thought that it should have been created, which I did. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television,  and Canada.  Donald D23   talk to me  02:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The notability test for television shows doesn't hinge on asserting that the show was "famous", it hinges on the quality of the sources that can or can't be shown to properly verify that the show was as "famous" as you claim. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. As always, television shows are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing — but all I can find on either ProQuest or Newspapers.com is television listings grids and glancing namechecks of this special's existence in sources that aren't about it in any non-trivial sense, which isn't the kind of sourcing we need to see. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2023 (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.