Deletion of Individual Space Ghost: Coast to Coast episodes

Comment: I disagree with the nominator's assertion that these articles do not meet .  They clearly pass the first fork of the proposal (importance of work of fiction).  The second fork is currently under dispute and is likely to be completely rewritten judging by discussions on the talk page, so it is hard to say that these fail it.  The third fork is apparently met (at least in some cases) due to the fact that several of these influenced the creation of spin-off shows, as described by TBone777 above.  I find it very hard to believe that no source could be found that mentions this
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT)

Comment: and simply tag for expansion, if "stub" is such a worry.  is not a guideline, and is not even a decent essay. Using that as a reason for deletion is a non-argument and editors should not allow it to cloud their considerations. As for a redirect, if informations about individual episodes would overburden the parent article, they are BY CURRENT GUIDELINE allowed to have their own article... else the parent article will be 20 pages long. That gets kind of ridiculous in a paperless encyclopedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:FICT)

Comment: Baffler Meal, as it is the episode launching the ''Aqua Teen Hunger Force'' characters and the article cites independent reliable sources that make this episode easily pass the |general notability guideline. '''Keep''' or '''merge''' the rest, but discussion on whether to merge or keep separate ought to occur on appropriate talk pages rather than AfD. This AfD is a good example of why the proposed  guideline is completely useless. Though the consensus on the talk page of that proposed guideline is that  isn't intended to be used as a reason to delete, here it is being used as a reason to delete, ''before it is even accepted as a guideline''. Will people ever agree on whether ''Space Ghost'' is "important" enough (even though it spun off several other shows, which to me is a good indicator of importance), whether each episode has a "significant role" within the series (how do you even decide this for an animated talk show parody?), or whether the DVD commentary has enough "real-world coverage"? Rather than help us resolve stale old perennial debates, it simply introduces new things for us to argue about
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:FICT)

Comment: per  and over http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wiki_is_not_paper&oldid=917 seven years of precedent for episode articles. They're episodes of a notable TV show.  is policy, yet WP:FICT is just a proposal
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)