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 17:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Futz![edit]

Futz! (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)

Originally deleted for lack of context (CSD:A1), recently undeleted. The article appears to fail WP:GNG. I am suggesting deletion or redirection to the article on the production company. -- Patchy1 02:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Teletoon Original Productions - It seems it never continued past 2007 and IMDb and Google News results both support this (with all of the articles from either 2006 or 2007). The most recent article of all is this from December 2007 announcing the episodes were sold to several international networks. This list indicates the show wasn't well received by some people though it proves nothing, several shows especially children's are sometimes hated regardless. The sudden disappearance is not uncommon with animated shows, a perfect example is Caillou which experienced hiatus for years before an official ending. SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter two sentences actually constitute reasoning for keeping the article, not redirecting it. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose: There are multiple WP:RS in the article, so WP:N is established. The nominator is also incorrect regarding the article being undeleted; undeletion was in fact denied and the article recreated from scratch instead (an action supported by this statement by the denying administrator: "See WP:AFC or WP:USERSPACEDRAFT for your way forward."). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I got it mixed up with another article. In any case, minus the recently undeleted part, my nom stands. -- Patchy1 23:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - the undelete request was denied, twice, and yet the article was recreated in a basically identical manner very soon afterwards. Maybe a locked redirect to List of Teletoon Original Productions would be in order. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recreated article was not at all identical. As I recall, the original version consisted of part of a sentence - no WP:RS, or sources at all for that matter, were included. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the article before was that it was lacking in context and content - now it's severely lacking in content, just taking up one line. I fail to see how this article is worth having at all. TV shows are not inherently notable all by themselves. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking in content is not a valid deletion reason; see WP:STUB. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is. Besides that, notability is never established: at the moment, all the sources establish is that it exists, not that it was ever notable. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first point: the only sentence in WP:STUB that supports this is: "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." However, this is different from lacking in content, and this particular article is a good example of this, as it actually packs quite a bit of verifiable information into its small size:

• The show is a Teletoon Original Production.
• The show started airing in 2007.
• The show was created by Vadim Kapridov.
• The show consists of 26 episodes.
• Each episode of the show is 3 minutes long.

Regarding your second point: see WP:N - having multiple WP:RS in an article automatically establishes it, unless the article's existence violates one or more other WP:GUIDELINE(s). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete per Lukeno94 and SALT. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Delete and SALT for obvious reasons mentioned above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Delete and SALT. You could have 100 references...still not notable. (Why do people think adding refs makes things notable?) — ^Wylie_Coyote 01:35, 8 December 2012 (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.