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 redirect to Lucy Does a TV Commercial. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vitameatavegamin[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. Nothing shows any reason for the topic to be covered outside of Lucy Does a TV Commercial. TTN (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since TTN has recently complained when I've listed bare links in AfDs, I'm not going to bother this time: The above 'find sources' news, newspapers, books, and scholar links each show dozens of presumably independent RS links, which even in their snippets call the subject skit (which I've never seen) 'Iconic'. I'll note the article already appears to have two independent RS'es, apparently already meeting the GNG when nominated. Merging a notable element into its parent media, but that's a subject for regular editing and talk-page consensus building, not AfD. Jclemens (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The grand majority of anything you're going to find is completely within the context of the single episode in which it appeared, including the two sources in the article. There is nothing showing that the single plot element is indpendtly notable outside of the episode. The episode itself is certainly notable and this is just one part of it. As this current article is simply a plot regurgitation, there is nothing that needs to be merged, so deletion and then a new redirect is the best option. Only if the main article becomes overly bloated on information on this topic should it be split out.TTN (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, of COURSE it is. But it's apparently a memorable episode in a memorable show, as others have observed. You realize you argue contradictory things in different AfDs, TTN? It's only one episode, here, but when another fictional element is so well known from multiple places that no one feels compelled to explain it when they write about it, you criticize that as trivial coverage. Again, I'm not a Lucille Ball fan, never seen the episode in question, so I'm a terrible person to make an argument about how important it is or isn't; all I can do is judge by the number and scope of the coverage. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is one aspect about why the episode itself is notable. It is a one-time thing featured in that episode and is always mentioned within the context of the episode. It is not something like Monty Python where the skits were mainly self-contained and could be performed separately at different works. Anything that can reasonably be mentioned about the topic is within the context of the episode, so it currently belongs in the episode. Should the impossible happen and the article becomes too bloated, then and only then should the topic be split out. TTN (talk) 20:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lucy Does a TV Commercial, with no objection to merging anything merge-worthy. It has negligible notability outside the context of the TV episode, and should be covered in that context. (WP:MERGEREASON #4) Alsee (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- All fictional elements are only notable within the framework in which they are mentioned. We spin them out when the coverage would unbalance the article on that particular framework. Jclemens (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Lucy episode. I don't have no 'splaining to do, as it has already been done. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural speedy close In this diff, the nominator attempts to redirect the article, which shows that this is a nomination intended to circumvent the proper forum for discussion on the talk page, and use AfD people instead of the content experts who should be making this decision. In the lieu of proper closing of the AfD, I recommend a "keep", as WP:BEFORE D1 shows that this topic has plenty of sources, and is clearly differentiated from the episode. IMO, some material from the episode article moved here would benefit both articles. I've seen the episode twice, so I may not be neutral as I've enjoyed the memories here. Unscintillating (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That's ridiculous - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2016 (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.