Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Day the Dream Died
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 Dispatches (TV series). MBisanz talk 01:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Day the Dream Died (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)
Hello, I'm nominating this article for deletion as it fails to meet the notability status as required by Wikipedia guidelines. K. (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer I have refactored the above nomination to include the standard deletion templates. Please consider the time of this comment as the start time for the discussion. Monty845 15:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notability not established. The article gives no sources and almost no information on this one episode of a TV series. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to the series, because this lacks evdience of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If such references are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Dispatches (TV series). Seems to lack enough for a standalone article, and what we have at the moment isn't worth keeping. --Michig (talk) 10:36, 9 December 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.