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 delete. See also the previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sesame Street closing sequence (also a "delete" decision). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sesame Street Closing Sequence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unencyclopedic. Georgia guy (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Given just how pervasive the closing sponsorship by two letters and a number is in at least American popular culture (dunno about other countries), I'd think at the very least notability is not an issue. If the concern is that there's too much detail, that's a reason to cleanup, not a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater. If the nominator could explicate that deletion reason, though, it'd be helpful. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree that it's unencyclopedic in its current form. I have major doubts that it's notable enough independently from Sesame Street to warrant a seperate article (i.e. multiple reliable non-trivial published sources specifically addressing the closing sequence), but Quasirandom has a point, it seems to be a well-known part of American popular culture (and many people in the UK would probably at least understand the reference).--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep/merge needs cleanup due to the painful amount of trivial details, but solid ground otherwiseBeeblbrox (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Today's article is brought to you by the letters "O" and "R" However, a weak keep given the 40 year run of Sesame Street, and its influence on millions of American children who have gown up during that time. Mandsford (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. All that needs to be said on this topic already appears in a single sentence in the Sesame Street article: Within the context of the show, and before the actual underwriting announcements, it is announced that "Sesame Street is brought to you by" the letters and number of the day, as though they too were sponsors. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In this exceptional case, i think the sequences are notable. DGG (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I just commented above (didn't "vote"), but I agree with Metropolitan on this one thinking about it now.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia is not a....13:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BotMachine3 (talk • contribs)
• Comment. Wikipedia is not a closing logo description. Thus, this article is broguht to you by the letters 'D' and 'K. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACMEMan (talk • contribs) 13:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Where is the article's revision history? It seems to be created ( from some other page? ) by a bot. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • BotMachine3's creation of the article was the only edit before this article's nomination. Georgia guy (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I didn't think human editors were allowed to have "bot" in their names. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I put a note about this AFD on the talk page for Sesame Street, to see if there's any interest in a cleanup/merge. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as relentlessly geeky trivia. Having read some of this article, I have to agree with Metropolitan90 that the few sentences in the main Sesame Street article are sufficient. Mangoe (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In the past an essentially identical article has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sesame Street closing sequence. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we mention that this is a second nomination at the top of the AFD? Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that we usually do with a template at the beginning if the previous Afd is known. In any case, it's still delete, not simply because it is repost, but also because I see little here that would change the previous consensus. Transwiking would also be fine.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should have the other AFD up top for recordkeeping purposes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Muppet Wikia has a similar article this could be merged to: Muppet.wikia.com: Sesame Street Theme Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This could be covered in the main Sesame Street article, probably in the span of two sentences. Gladys J Cortez 01:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little more to it than the "brought to you by the letter A and the number 1" line. I wouldn't mind a well-sourced description of the little films they showed during the closing credits, and the different songs they used over the years. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep -- Given the history of the show, some of the information is valuable; however, the article is tainted with too much trivial minutae, such as the bit-by-bit styles of the closings and the copyrights. Lots of editing is needed, if kept. -- azumanga (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment -- according to Nate's information regarding Gsnguy ([1]), BotMachine3, the originator of this article, is a sock of Gsnguy. -- azumanga (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering what I have seen of Gsnguy's demeanor, I change my vote to delete. Let someone else who actually has business being here add the info. -- azumanga (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2008 (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.