Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NumberWang

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 Boldly redirected to That Mitchell and Webb Look, which seems to be the direction that this discussion was headed in. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NumberWang

NumberWang (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I think that Numberwang is funny as hell, but it doesn't deserve its own page. Note that a separate page at Numberwang was already redirected without question to That Mitchell and Webb Look; this page was prodded and contested without reason. There don't seem to be enough sources out there to make a serious page on Numberwang, it seems -- all I'm finding is YouTube and blogs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I just have to say it: That's Numberwang! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This article is notable enough to keep. But may need some cleaning up.--RyRy5 talk 04:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think you're all that familiar with deletion policy yet (no offense). The main issue isn't cleaning up, it's lack of notability and reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• That's not numberwang sorry I mean Delete. Wikipedia does carry articles on notable memes and Numberwang has some existence beyond Mitchell and Webb...but not enough yet. Once some po-mo academic completes their thesis on NumberWang as an extended metaphor for the AfD process on Wikipedia the article can return. Until then not-notable and not-really-encyclopedic and covered better in existing article.Nick Connolly (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to That Mitchell and Webb Look. No notability outside of the series, the article for which already describes it in sufficient detail.--Michig (talk) 08:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to That Mitchell and Webb Look.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 12:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep This article covers the subject in greater depth than the section of the show's article about the subject but it does lack sourcing. Still, a call for improvement is in order, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've already tried to improve it, but it doesn't seem to be the subject of any sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• redirect to That Mitchell and Webb Look or delete without Mitchell and Webb it has no notability and would be most likely have been speedy deleted. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Come on, come on... must think of hilarious Numberwang related joke... ah who cares. Redirect to That Mitchell and Webb Look. It may be one of the main recurring sketches in the show, but on its own it isn't notable enough and can be explained adequately on the TMAWL page. Gran² 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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.