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 and redirect. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 00:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairly Oddparents (pilot)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Absolutely no secondary sources. Previous "keep" votes from last afd all hinged on the fact that it was a pilot of a very notable cartoon, but I don't see any individual notability for this pilot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Pilots are often retained as having an implied notability, reliable secondary sources do need to exist for substantiation and the usual restrictions per WP:N apply. Eusebeus (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairly Oddparents. There's potentially mergeable material in here (provided sources are added) that are missing from the main article. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As it shows the decidedly different personalities of some of the characters and their relationships from the later series, it is notable in itself. Do I wish the editors had more sources? Yep. Is that sufficient for a deletion or merge? No. Does it stand on its own as a short? Likely yes. Collect (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or very weak redirect Just as non-notable (WP:N) as it was nine months ago, and the closing admin warned that "merges and redirections are likely to follow" if the article doesn't get improved. Google News/Books/Scholar only seems to offer general information about the show, but nothing significant for the pilot. The one current production sentence was paraphrased and merged into the main article (no GFDL issues), where future pilot bits can be mentioned as well if someone should find any. – sgeureka ^t•c 00:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support giving grace to pilot episodes, as they are significantly more likely to have secondary sources granting notability. The previous AfD ended with a not-delete result for the aforementioned reason. However, the sources were not provided, now several months later. Therefore, this grace should no longer be extended to this article. The only content perhaps worth retaining would be the bit about the origin of the episode. But I don't see any particular need to retain the history and redirect: someone else can summarize the information in the main article if it's deemed necessary, and so the GFDL is satisfied. I do not anticipate anybody will actually enter The Fairly Oddparents (pilot) in the search bar, so I see no need to retain a redirect. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Fairly Oddparents. Some information is different between the two articles. There doesn't seem to be a reason for this particular pilot to have its own article. However, the information is of value on a sourced subject found elsewhere on Wikipedia. SMSpivey (talk) 07:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 3% of the article has managed to be referenced in the last 10 months (nor the 9 months since the last AfD), and it has no evidence of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject to satisfy the notability guideline. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per User:Seresin. The last AfD was keep. Not suprisingly, no editor voting to delete has bothered to add any references themselves. travb (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of improvement since the last AFD is telling. Stifle (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2008 (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.