- 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. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The Unicorns Have Got to Go
- The Unicorns Have Got to Go ( | 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 article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and from an online search, the subject does not seem to be notable enough to warrant its own article. – Matthew - ( talk) 02:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 13. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 02:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This episode has had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, mainly as it references an episode from Regular Show, a notable Cartoon Network program that has all of its episodes listed and referenced in Wikipedia. I'm not sure how this could be deemed not notable if it's referenced by not only IMDB and TV.com, but also the List of Regular Show episodes and has been seen over 2 millions times? The nomination for deletion seems bizarre. ScooterbeeZy ( talk) 03:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Furthermore, according to WP:N, a topic must have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Aside from the page on TV.com, there doesn't seem to be much significant coverage online of this episode in particular to warrant its own article. – Matthew - ( talk) 03:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Concur with nom. Both references are episode databases that include a similar entry for every episode in the series. There is no reason that this episode is any more significant that the others. There is no in-depth coverage and no notability. MB 05:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Most Regular Show episodes don't have articles. Nothing here suggests this one episode warrants an article. Bondegezou ( talk) 08:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete the notability of this episode separate from the show has not been demonstrated to the point where it should be included in Wikipedia. No substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- 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 delete. Sarahj2107 ( talk) 11:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The Unicorns Have Got to Go
- The Unicorns Have Got to Go ( | 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 article does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and from an online search, the subject does not seem to be notable enough to warrant its own article. – Matthew - ( talk) 02:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 13. — cyberbot I Talk to my owner:Online 02:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This episode has had significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, mainly as it references an episode from Regular Show, a notable Cartoon Network program that has all of its episodes listed and referenced in Wikipedia. I'm not sure how this could be deemed not notable if it's referenced by not only IMDB and TV.com, but also the List of Regular Show episodes and has been seen over 2 millions times? The nomination for deletion seems bizarre. ScooterbeeZy ( talk) 03:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Furthermore, according to WP:N, a topic must have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Aside from the page on TV.com, there doesn't seem to be much significant coverage online of this episode in particular to warrant its own article. – Matthew - ( talk) 03:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 04:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Concur with nom. Both references are episode databases that include a similar entry for every episode in the series. There is no reason that this episode is any more significant that the others. There is no in-depth coverage and no notability. MB 05:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Most Regular Show episodes don't have articles. Nothing here suggests this one episode warrants an article. Bondegezou ( talk) 08:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delete the notability of this episode separate from the show has not been demonstrated to the point where it should be included in Wikipedia. No substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. TonyBallioni ( talk) 23:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
- 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.