Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I'm Happy to be Fat (2nd nomination)

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. GedUK  13:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Happy to be Fat (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)

No reliable sources. There are two dead links and a single link to the episode online. There are no reliable secondary sources that I could find using a Google search. Does not meet notability requirements per WP:GNG --Iamozy (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 September 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - After looking, I've found coverage of this here, here, and here. Generally speaking, though, the response to this program has been on blogs and the like. I'm not sure what to think, personally. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Springfield News Sun would be a reliable source in this case. A blog is not a reliable source, and the LA Times only mentions that an actress was in the episode. A passing mention does not count as a source, as it says nothing about the episode except for the fact that it exists. I'm thinking that with only a single source, this article does not meet notability requirements per WP:GNG --Iamozy (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree that the best thing is just to delete the article. I do want, though, to also see what more editors think. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Either merge or expand If this is the total amount of information to be included, it might as well be merged into a list; but if anyone has access to a recording or transcription, or even a more detailed description in a TV guide, it could be expanded. Whether the episodes of this series are worth expansion is another question. My view is that it depends on the importance of the series as a whole. If it is one of the series of the greatest truly major aesthetic or historical or popular importance, we could justify detailed treatment. I don;'t see that this is the case, but I'm not an expert there. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A transcript or recording is a primary source. Original research does not justify the existence of a Wikipedia article. Also, there is no such thing as notability-by-association. Even if the series is notable, that doesn't mean the subject of this article is. As for merging, that was proposed 7 years ago and was never done. There isn't really any logical place to do so in the True Life article. I don't see it ever getting done, so I don't think that is a good enough reason to keep this article a second time. --Iamozy (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show notability. News produced a handful of trivial mentions, Newspapers - zero, books returned zero independent sources, Scholar, Highbeam and JSTOR also returned nothing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Can't even find it on MTV series website anymore. External link is 404 too. — Wyliepedia 09:29, 25 September 2015 (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.