Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Dark (Angel)
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 List of Angel episodes . MBisanz talk 01:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Dark (Angel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deprodded by a new editor with an WP:ILIKEIT rationale. No notability asserted. No secondary sources. Fails all notability criteria for episodes. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 05:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Angel episodes per nom. TBrandley 05:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Angel episodes per above rationale. I haven't found anything that focuses on this specific episode to show that it has any independent notability. (Reviews, etc.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete & redirect to Angel (season 1). Rotten regard Softnow 21:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – With this edit, I have added several more references to the article. That brings the total number of references to 6, including the TV.com external reference, and counting the IMDb entry only once. It seems to me that the article now meets the general notability guideline. Admittedly the article contains a lot of text that's not currently referenced, but that's another story. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The extra refs added either aren't covering the subject with any real significance or they are unreliable. --Shorthate (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2012 (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.