| Revision as of 00:21, 29 October 2007 editWilhelmina Will (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers348,378 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:38, 29 October 2007 edit undoEusebeus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers10,667 edits →The Things We Do for Mud//How Much Wood Can a Wood Pecker Peck?: deleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| Couldn't you all say "Unfortunately not notable" instead of "not notable", to soften the blow? Show some pity! ''(Crying worsens even more)'' I'm an article's mother, whose children are being sentenced to death, semi-permanently or even permanently, and no one even has heart enough to console me for it! What kind of encyclopedic society is this, anyway! I'm asking you, article's mother to other article's mothers/fathers - ''(ceasing to cry for a moment)'' surely you've all created articles at some point, right? ''(Resumes crying)'' ] 00:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC) | Couldn't you all say "Unfortunately not notable" instead of "not notable", to soften the blow? Show some pity! ''(Crying worsens even more)'' I'm an article's mother, whose children are being sentenced to death, semi-permanently or even permanently, and no one even has heart enough to console me for it! What kind of encyclopedic society is this, anyway! I'm asking you, article's mother to other article's mothers/fathers - ''(ceasing to cry for a moment)'' surely you've all created articles at some point, right? ''(Resumes crying)'' ] 00:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per TTN; a redirect would be acceptable, but what's the point really with such trivial information. ] 15:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:38, 29 October 2007
The Things We Do for Mud//How Much Wood Can a Wood Pecker Peck?
- The Things We Do for Mud//How Much Wood Can a Wood Pecker Peck? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This is a trivial episode that fails WP:EPISODE's criteria to build a good episode, and it shows no way to improve. By failing that, it fails WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS, as it has no sources to assert and establish notability. It also fails WP:NOT#PLOT for being mostly comprised of plot. TTN 17:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete—no assertion of notability, no real-world context. Pagrashtak 18:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Iggy Arbuckle. No indication that the episode is independently notable. A few sentences in the main article will suffice to cover the subject. Otto4711 19:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete — Not-notable and not likely ever to be. (But I love the extra slash.) --Jack Merridew 10:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- (I've moved it to single-slash title) --Jack Merridew 10:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable. Mindraker 12:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Iggy Arbuckle per nomination and User:Otto4711 and because of the probable difficulty of locating multiple authoritative independent sources for citation. Alice.S 05:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't you all say "Unfortunately not notable" instead of "not notable", to soften the blow? Show some pity! (Crying worsens even more) I'm an article's mother, whose children are being sentenced to death, semi-permanently or even permanently, and no one even has heart enough to console me for it! What kind of encyclopedic society is this, anyway! I'm asking you, article's mother to other article's mothers/fathers - (ceasing to cry for a moment) surely you've all created articles at some point, right? (Resumes crying) Wilhelmina Will 00:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per TTN; a redirect would be acceptable, but what's the point really with such trivial information. Eusebeus 15:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)