Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very special episode


 * 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 (WP:SNOW). King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Very special episode

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research and not much else, not unlike what's going on here. Unless some sources can be added, this article should go. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources do about the minimum to establish notability - needing more inline sourcing is not the same as being original research. Valid encyclopaedic topic. Wily D  16:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What sources? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Could use some cleanup and a trimming, but there are plenty of references to the concept. See, , , etc. Zagalejo^^^ 20:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources found by Zagalejo amount to nothing more than a DICTDEF. Anything on top of that is unverified original research. Themfromspace (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The sources provide enough commentary and examples of the "genre" to let us go beyond a dicdef. There are more sources out there:, , , etc. Zagalejo^^^ 01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Then how about actually adding the sources to the article? Like I said, if valid sources are added, the article should stay. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "Add sources" how? I've placed a few more external links into the article, but if you're expecting a thorough cleanup, you're going to have to be patient. I haven't actually read through the entire article yet, so I don't have a clear idea what can stay and what should go. (Of course, you're free to tinker with the article yourself. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, after all.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How should you add sources? Look here for help. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the mechanics of adding sources, but I can't just plop a few footnotes into the article and make all the problems disappear. Some rewriting will surely be necessary, to ensure that the exact wording in the article is supported by the sources. "Adding sources" is not always as easy as it sounds. It will take some time and thought. Zagalejo^^^ 17:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Zagalejo. JuJube (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a notable topic, especially in the United States. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's so notable, where are the sources? In fact, there used to be an entire article called List of very special episodes, which got deleted because it was made up of original research. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has some external links, and there are many additional sources which can be used in the article. (See this Google Books search for evidence.) The insufficient sourcing can be resolved through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Sources found by Zagalejo are more than comprehensive enough to build a reasonable article. To characterize them as "nothing more than a dictdef" is grossly misleading.  First source has several sentences giving a brief description and a list of common attributes of shows in this genre; I can't see the content of the second source, so can't comment; third source is an 11-page article giving in-depth examples and discussion of the genre... I really don't need to go on.  Those sources are enough to keep by themselves, yet there are three more to use: A NYT feature, among others.  Clearly a very notable subject. JulesH (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, suggesting that the sources need to go into the article now to prevent deletion is a gross misrepresentation of policy; WP:DELETION states that if an article can be fixed by editing, it should not be deleted. Now we know the sources exist, we know it can be fixed.  End of problem. JulesH (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2009 (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.