Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ex Mach Tina

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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ex Mach Tina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing other than WP:ROUTINE coverage, nothing to show this particular episode passes WP:GNG. Well written, but not every episode of every tv show is notable. As per WP:EPISODE, articles for a show's individual should only, "Create pages for outstanding episodes". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in the List of Bob's Burgers episodes most of the TV show's episodes have an article here. Why did you pick one article of it and nominate it for deletion? There some articles which aren't well written. --Morten Haan 🏂 talk • skin draft 15:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - because it's not notable. The fact that there are articles about other non-notable episodes is an WP:OSE argument. Which in this case, in my opinion, isn't valid. I came across this particular article as part of new page patrolling. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that episodes of Bob's Burgers have enough independent secondary sources so that they are notable even if article uses just one. --Morten Haan 🏂 talk • skin draft 15:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing must not only be independent, but must be in-depth. Which this doesn't meet. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a pretty decent article to me, no reason to delete it. I also undid your blanking of The Last Gingerbread House on the Left. Multichill (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And your policy basis for that decision? Being a "pretty decent article" is not a valid reason to keep it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not into the enWikilawyering, I just stick to the Five pillars. Multichill (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The first three entries on the 'news' section of the above find sources template appear to each be valid independent RS'es that discuss the episode with more than a mere mention. Thus, GNG is met. I further note that the nominator's quote of WP:EPISODE is taken out of context and not itself a statement of policy, and WP:ROUTINE has absolutely nothing to do with television shows. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: In the interest of transparency, after coming across this interpretation of WP:EPISODE, I have changed the wording to better reflect policy and guidelines by changing outstanding to notable. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Jclemens! --Morten Haan 🥐 talk • skin draft 15:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.