- 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 both Spaced Out Cat and Hi, Robot to List of Tom and Jerry Tales episodes per WP:GNG and WP:EPISODE. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spaced Out Cat
- Spaced Out Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've tried redirecting this to List of Tom and Jerry Tales episodes several times (per this discussion), as it's an unremarkable episode (unnotable on its own, fails WP:GNG) of an animated series, but another editor constantly restores it. Deletion requested. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As Omkar1234 has now started edit-warring on another episode article that was also part of the previous discussion establishing the redirects, I've added it to the discussion as well:
- Redirect as suggested. The individual article is clearly not notable, and the redirect seems a helpful one ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 14:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. We need to replace that page with a semi-protected redirect.—S Marshall T/C 17:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 22:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep every short. We can put very much information. We can make a template of the episodes like the Tom and Jerry Cartoons. Even if you could put a semiprotected redirect, it's good to know that I'm an autoconfirmed user. The one who was restoring it. Omkar1234 (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We can, but why should we? This episode (and in fact, all of them) fails the general notability guideline - which is why the previous discussion
(which you've ignored the directives of)redirected them all to List of Tom and Jerry Tales episodes. You've failed to provide even one reason why this episode notable on its own. Also, your status as autoconfirmed or not does not matter to this discussion, as it has no bearing at all on the article itself. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But I had not been registered during the request of deletion of list of Tom and Jerry Tales Episodes Omkar1234 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And this is relevant to the discussion about the lack of individual notability of these episodes how, exactly? MikeWazowski (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But I had not been registered during the request of deletion of list of Tom and Jerry Tales Episodes Omkar1234 (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect I don't see a reason to revise the previous AfD result in this case, the article does not have much more content then what is provided in the list. If it could be established that this episode had some special significance such that it warranted an independent article it would be another matter, but this appears to be nothing more then a plot summary, which again, the list does a fine job of. Monty845 14:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. I had restoring it because I could not see the information for the cartoons. Omkar1234 Space ShuttleOmkar1234! 15:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate vote struck through - you don't get to vote on this multiple times, Omkar1234 - and you've still failed to address the critical issue of (or more specifically, the lack of) notability for these individual episodes. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect there is nothing in the article that in any way justifies its seperate existence. It is a classic example of an article that fails the guidelines for making an encyclopedic article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 9 June 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.