Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winx Club

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. JForget 00:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winx Club

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

The article seems not to be notable for Wikipedia standards and has very few to little references --about lets say only eleven sources-- not sure if they're even reliable because I followed two of them and none matched the supposed "facts". The grammar and structure of the whole article seem unfinished and seemingly child-like sentences not worthy of Wikipedia's standards. There's a lot of original research and biased points of view. There's also a sign of "ownership" of the article with some of the contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrode Light (talk • contribs) 10:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Electrode Light 10:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep - As major Tv series transmitted in a number of countries this is notable. Can be sourced better, but AfD is not for assessment of the actual state. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What's the point of having an un sourced article? It's just a waste of space, no wonder people don't trust Wikipedia and it's because of these kinds of articles. I say that it can only be kept if the editors fix it up soon because I think it's better to have nothing than a page full of nonsense! Greene Leigh Online (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think this is a notable children's animation series. JIP | Talk 17:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable TV series. Lots of GNews hits, many of which involve substantial coverage. (A handful of examples from a quick search: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].) AfD shouldn't be used for cleanup of articles on obviously notable subjects.--Chris Johnson (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, stubify I would support rewriting this article from scratch due to sourcing problems. Our audience is the general public, not people who are already fans and want to read each season's summary. Shii (tock) 19:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable series per sources such as those found by Chris Johnson. If there are problems with the content, then remove the problematic or "nonsense" content, but I don't see a good reason to delete the article altogether. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep AFD is not cleanup. It's aired on major networks in several nations and has a wide fanbase. Concerns about the quality of an article should be addressed in other venues, including the article's talk page, but this process doesn't work by allowing deletion just because of poor writing. Certainly there is extreme plotcruft that can be removed here. Nate • (chatter) 04:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Snowball Clause cannot be invoked (actually, you'd be asking for a Speedy Keep) as it appears to be a nomination given in good faith and has at least one "delete" recommendation. On the other hand, the citations mentioned in the discussion would be better served if they were inserted in the article itself. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Winx Club show has references and meets the general notability guideline. it:Winx Club has more references which could be used in the article. --Malkinann (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2009 (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.