Talk:Underfunded
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Untitled
Anything available on a DVD release? Been a long time since this article was updated - Is there anything we missed?
talk 15:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
]
Sad
Sad that this never turned into a series. I liked it.
My two cents is that this article should probably go away. The notability of the topic is not high now that a few years have gone by.
--Mcorazao (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Notability is not temporary, but it does lack any real secondary sources. Cleanup preferred to deletion - Give it a shot. Adding some to EL to start. talk 03:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)]
- Well, that is misapplying a WP policy (i.e. "the article exists therefore it has a right to exist").
- One could argue that based on "Wikipedia is not a news source" this article shouldn't have been created. However, it is not uncommon for topics that have some significant attention at some time and for which there was some expection that they might get more attention in the future to have a stub like this one created as a placeholder. So I would argue it was reasonable to create the article at the time. But this pilot never turned into anything and there is no expectation that it will ever be anything more than one of hundreds of forgotten pilots. So while it had borderline notability (i.e. "benefit of the doubt" notability) that notability is gone at this point.
- Anyway, I'm not going to nominate it for deletion. I'm just saying ... --Mcorazao (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't making a policy statement - Just saying that I'd popped a couple potential sources that could be used as a starting point to demonstrate notability. That said, it has been several years since this aired or was covered in any meaningful way, and all available WP:RS seem to be limited to coverage of its initial announcement and airing. A case could be made for deletion, but anything less than actual AfD would seem a little iffy. talk 15:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)]
- I wasn't making a policy statement - Just saying that I'd popped a couple potential sources that could be used as a starting point to demonstrate notability. That said, it has been several years since this aired or was covered in any meaningful way, and all available WP:RS seem to be limited to coverage of its initial announcement and airing. A case could be made for deletion, but anything less than actual AfD would seem a little iffy.