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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrew their nomination and there are no arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 18:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NightWash[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article is only a sentence of 6 words with 1 external link, no references. Article provides basically no encyclopedic information. NYSMy talk page 06:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll Withdraw the nomination, AfD got things going. :) NYSMy talk page 11:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough. AFD is not an expand on demand service even if it functions as one. in future kindly ask for me to expand an article and you'll likely get a similar response. If its a very short article and has a translation tag on it then it's more than likely the article is notable.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what you mean by 'not good enough'. AfDs can certainly be withdrawn, and there are no delete votes. NYSMy talk page 11:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean don't do this again without researching them before nomming them. Try asking creators to expand, if no reply within a week take it to AFD then if you're sure it can't be expanded.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be kept, but don't badger the nominator. There's no requirement to wait a week before nominating something, don't mislead users by pretending there is. Users sometimes disagree on notability/verifiability and that's what AFD is for. If an improved, solid article is the result, then everybody wins. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I mentioned when I deprodded the article, numerous Google News sources seem to be available. There are likely to be others. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We don't delete a stub articles because they are small, we expand the articles. However, a better job should have been done when article was created. Plenty of sources available to make it notable. Why does the title conjure up a porno show about a car wash... Bgwhite (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is there somewhere we can request for someone to translate the content from the German Wikipedia article? NYSMy talk page 07:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Add the ((Expand German)) template to the article. Google translate does an adequate job to add some info from the German article. Bgwhite (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The template was already in place, the idea was that people come along and translate and expand them, not, erm, AFD them.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 10:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's been 18 months, so I'm thinking people don't like that idea. I personally prefer to create substantial, referenced articles instead of... laying work on other people. NYSMy talk page 11:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources. --John (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider adding them. NYSMy talk page 11:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing. Please consider doing the most basic research before nominating an article on a notable subject for deletion. --John (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. Also your outlook Now isn't in the spirit of wikipedia. I'm not a fluent German speaking editor and don't feel confident translating from German without it being proof read. As for telling me I'm lazy and I expect other people to do the work, clearly you're a newbie or just ignorant of the editors who actually do most of the hard work around here. Yes, the articles would have been better written fully first time but at the time trying to reduce the big gap in coverage of notable articles seemed worthwhile. Unfortunately we have a very low German speaking participation or interest in German topics on wikipedia to translate. Above all it's an effort to try to work towards systematic bias on here which means we have articles on most American television episodes but didn't even have articles on notable German TV series let alone on the episodes.. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable TV show airing in a major market for over a decade. Sourcing doesn't appear to be a problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 23 February 2013 (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.