Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Every Which Way But Zeus

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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every Which Way But Zeus

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

Contested prod. I doubt that episode is notable, this article has no sources or citations, and it currently fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk) 04:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided Almost every episode of the Venture Bros. has an article. Is this a test-case or is there something specific about this episode? I would say delete, but I think it would be more appropriate to discuss all the articles as a group. Wickedjacob (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of the other articles on Venture Bros. episodes lack sources or citations, and aren't any more or less notable than this one, and yet haven't been flagged for deletion. Salmanazar (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other stuff exists is not a good reason to keep an article. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganize it Make season articles out of the too-long List of Venture Bros Episodes, and merge most of this into the to-be-created Season 4 article, intelligently trimming in the process. Repeat the process with other individual articles that lack independent notability, per our best practices elsewhere. Jclemens (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found the article interesting, though I agree it needs citations. If there is not enough people who want to keep it, then I like Jclemens' idea of creating season pages, and moving the citable/notable information to that page. Cmcnicoll (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2011 (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.