Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mortyplicity

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 keep. WP:SNOW close. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mortyplicity

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Nominating along with Mort Dinner Rick Andre; I fail to see how this episode is notable as well; being an episode of a popular show doesn't qualify it for notability, this article just seems very WP:Fancruft to me. (Also, this article relies on a lot of primary sources) wizzito | say hello! 15:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 15:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 15:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment - Forgot to say this, but this article should probably be merged into Rick and Morty (season 5). wizzito | say hello! 15:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: meets WP:GNG per the reviews. Meets WPTV common practice, including the soon-to-be-proposed Wikipedia:Notability (television)#Television episodes, with information for a non-trivial Production section and Analysis and Reception. Primary sources are appropriate and well-used per WP:PRIMARY. If the nominator did the required WP:BEFORE search then they should have specified what they found and why it isn't enough for notability, because it seems clear that even before looking for non-English language sources, you can find a wealth of reviews from Canadian, Australia, UK etc. publications. AFD is also not the place to go for a nominator to recommend merging—Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers would be one fitting location. — Bilorv (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above, the episodes do indeed meet WP:GNG per the reviews and WPTV. Cardei012597 (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bilorv. –Bangalamania (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just like the other episode this passes GNG with ease.★Trekker (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable, along with the other episode. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and reviewed. Pikavoom (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree that episodes are not inherently notable on their own, but when they have reliable sources, we can't argue the other way and say that they are inherently non-notable. The sources here justify the notability of this article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and reviewed. This episode is one of a kind. This article is a good summary of it. 8:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.94.49 (talk)

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.