Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry Birds Peace Treaty

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Birds Peace Treaty

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is on a single sketch of a comedy show. Questionable notability; over half of the article is devoted to listing the random blogs and news sources that mention it, and at least one of the sources inserted for establishing notability (in particular the New York Times link in the first paragraph) are really articles about Angry Birds that mention this video only in passing. Article also has various stylistic issues (what is a "mock up peace treaty sketch"?) Thunderbunny (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Angry Birds#Other media. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contra the nominator, refs 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 10 appear to be independent RS dealing with the sketch in a non-trivial manner--including MSNBC, Haaretz, and the Guardian. GNG is clearly met. Now, this could probably be merged into the main Angry Birds article, but that's an editorial decision, not one for AfD. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. I too often see AfD used as a tool for what should be merge proposals. AfD is for deleting content that is so bad, that it should not appear anywhere on Wikipedia. Anything else can be discussed on the talkpage of related articles. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens and Blake. Marokwitz (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2011 (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.