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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination, however, given the time-delay from earlier versus later comments.
slakr\
talk / 02:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Lacks available sources. Fails
WP:GNG. -
MrX 03:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)reply
KEEP Scooby Doo is well known and is notable. It does need some work but that cannot happen if deleted.
208.54.40.144 (
talk) 16:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Soft Delete The special hasn't been released yet and because of that there seems to be a dearth of information concerning the special, which has resulted in actual question marks being used in place of words in the entry. The release date is in two weeks, which would suggest it passes the
WP:NFF requirements, but I can't find any reliable sourcing that confirms that. However, assuming the arguments for the other Scooby direct-to-dvd specials holds, I think the author should have access to update the entry and add reliable sources when they become available, hence my thinking on deletion subject to userfication.
EBstrunk18 (
talk) 17:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep or Redirect until its release that is.
Wgolf (
talk) 02:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep It was too soon 6 days ago, now is not too soon. It has been release now.
Valoemtalkcontrib 20:48, 17 May 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.
The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination, however, given the time-delay from earlier versus later comments.
slakr\
talk / 02:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)reply
Lacks available sources. Fails
WP:GNG. -
MrX 03:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)reply
KEEP Scooby Doo is well known and is notable. It does need some work but that cannot happen if deleted.
208.54.40.144 (
talk) 16:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Soft Delete The special hasn't been released yet and because of that there seems to be a dearth of information concerning the special, which has resulted in actual question marks being used in place of words in the entry. The release date is in two weeks, which would suggest it passes the
WP:NFF requirements, but I can't find any reliable sourcing that confirms that. However, assuming the arguments for the other Scooby direct-to-dvd specials holds, I think the author should have access to update the entry and add reliable sources when they become available, hence my thinking on deletion subject to userfication.
EBstrunk18 (
talk) 17:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep or Redirect until its release that is.
Wgolf (
talk) 02:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep It was too soon 6 days ago, now is not too soon. It has been release now.
Valoemtalkcontrib 20:48, 17 May 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.