Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wanted: Wade


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 05:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wanted: Wade

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

If I read List of Garfield and Friends episodes right, then this article is about 1/3 of a thirty-minute episode (i.e. ignoring 10 mins of advertisement, this article is about 7 minutes of plot). Google News/Books/Scholar brings up basically nothing. I have serious doubts of WP:NOTABILITY (although this is episode is even part of the pilot), and this article consists of nothing but plot (WP:NOT) and unsourced WP:TRIVIA. I would have bold-redirected, but I think I need a CYA here. I am fine with deletion, redirection and merging (although I won't volunteer for trimming&merging because it's easier for fans to come up with a shorter new ep summary than for me to trim down to a one-liner), and I intend to take bold action for the remaining Garfield and U.S. Acres ep articles depending on the result of this AfD. – sgeureka t•c 12:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete complete and total fancruft could summarize this. It has no real world relevance, is largely plot summary and has zero sources.  I suppose a redirect could be made, but if it were up to me I'd just vape it. JuJube (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the list mentioned and let those editors figure out what to merge. Whatever you think about the content, it's still a valid search term. (What is a CYA? If you meant you wanted input, you should have asked at Requested mergers).- Mgm|(talk) 18:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * CYA == Cover your ass. I want nothing merged, but an unbureaucritic redirection (with cullable page histories) would/may have resulted in fanboy dissent, forcing me to restore all 100 (?) ep articles and start an AfD anyway to get a swift and unbiased outside opinion, so I decided to skip a few steps. Actual deletion is not totally out of the game either, so AfD is right. – sgeureka t•c 19:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable fancruft. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2008 (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.