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 merge to Home Movies (TV series). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retroscripting[edit]

Retroscripting (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)

The subject does not meet WP:GNG. Judging by a Google News archive search, the term has only been used by the creators of Home Movies in reference to that show. None of the sources cited in the article prior to 9 November use any form of the word except for one, and that one links the word back to our article, which at the time was a completely unsourced stub. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note - completing this nomination for an IP-user, as requested at WT:AfD, no opinion on the topic myself. GermanJoe (talk) 12:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I’ve dramatically edited the article since requesting the AFD nom. Here is the version before my edits: [1]. It was full of unsupported claims and unrelated sources, so I basically started over. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Home Movies (TV series). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nom, but correct to Home Movies (TV series). I don’t think there’s anything to merge, though; the target article already describes this subject. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • On second thought, I recommend delete without redirect. I don’t see any reason for the redirect (I don’t believe anyone would look up a TV show via an obscure term internally used to describe its development); and the article has no unique content, and was previously full of unverified claims and original research, so there’s nothing to merge. @Shawn in Montreal: Am I wrong? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I dunno. Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap, is the thinking. But YMMV. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Improvisational theatre#In film and television. This appears to me to be one person's pet term for something known more generally by a different term. --Rob Kelk 17:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete was thinking of closing this as "redirect," but on second thoughts this is not a plausible search term; so unless the target of the redirect is updated with this information, deleting is more appropriate, because no substantive coverage exists. Vanamonde93 (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Home Movies (TV series) as stated by Shawn in Montreal. Vincent60030 (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - No harm in leaving the redirect as long as the info is merged into the parent article. Definitely doesn't merit a standalone article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The term appears to be specifically associated with Home Movies rather than being a general term for improv. Redirects are cheap, so no need to delete after merging the information. clpo13_(talk) 07:43, 5 December 2015 (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.