Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jimmy Timmy Power Hour (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 speedy keep. per SK1 - Nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 12:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Jimmy Timmy Power Hour

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

Fails WP:GNG. In addition to this article being unreferenced, there is no significant coverage from any reliable secondary sources for any of the episodes. WP:NOTPLOT also applies as there is nothing but plot summaries within the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK 04:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the nominator brings up a good point in regards to WP:NOTPLOT, there are, in fact, some good sources to be found. [1] and [2] are a couple fairly good examples but there's even coverage from the Washington Post [3]. I won't argue that the article isn't a mess but it's definitely worthy of inclusion and can be improved. --Non-Dropframe _talk 16:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Ditto with above: People, TV Guide. 23W 00:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Redid the plot sections altogether and added secondary coverage. 23W 02:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, I was surprised when my pre-AFD searches didn't turn up any decent refs except for TV Guide pages, which only gave brief plot descriptions. Speaking of which, the plot sections definitely look better now without the excess detail. Thank you both for providing links as well as cleaning up the article. I now withdraw this AFD as the article is now decently referenced and doesn't solely consist of bloated plots. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo, what else is there to do on a Friday. I remember watching the first two films on TV and thinking they went on forever, but nothing to spill 1879 words over. 23W 06:04, 31 October 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.