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.
Per
WP:NOT. Might as well have a list of the times Cramer opens Jerry's door on Seinfeld.
Daniel(talk) 16:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:INDISCRIMINATE as "Summary-only descriptions of works" and (maybe a little more tenuously) "Excessive listings of statistics". This is an excessively-detailed list of things that happened in a TV show without any attempt at analysis, and no indication that in-depth expert third-party analysis exists. Hence, it's not encyclopedic content, it's strictly something for a fansite. --
Colapeninsula (
talk) 20:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete as utter nonsense, non-encyclopedic this fails
WP:GNG by a mile.
Secretaccount 04:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete ....does there even need to be a reason? Yikes. –
Recollected • 05:09, 6 February 2014 (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.
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.
Per
WP:NOT. Might as well have a list of the times Cramer opens Jerry's door on Seinfeld.
Daniel(talk) 16:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:INDISCRIMINATE as "Summary-only descriptions of works" and (maybe a little more tenuously) "Excessive listings of statistics". This is an excessively-detailed list of things that happened in a TV show without any attempt at analysis, and no indication that in-depth expert third-party analysis exists. Hence, it's not encyclopedic content, it's strictly something for a fansite. --
Colapeninsula (
talk) 20:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete as utter nonsense, non-encyclopedic this fails
WP:GNG by a mile.
Secretaccount 04:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete ....does there even need to be a reason? Yikes. –
Recollected • 05:09, 6 February 2014 (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.