Deletion of A Substantial Gift (The Broken Promise)

Comment: It's easy to forget the "significant" in |significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, but it's there
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: That a very few pre-wiki pre-internet sources are searchable online of a 27-year-old pilot episode, allows reasonble expectation that others exist and is completely within the meaning and intenet of . Not searchable online... but in libraries or subscription only archives. They exist. Period. And need not to be brought forward because a nom '''demands''' them of any editor who disagrees with him. Since I have that reasonable presumption that they exist, as evidenced by the few that are still searchable, it is now up to the nom to prove they do not. The nom now has the burden to convince me and all editors that the episode was never reviewed. He has the burden to prove that media ignored the episode and the stars and the event of it first airing. The New York Times and Boston Globe are indicators that others '''did''' indeed review it. His dismissive argument is akin to someone asserting that dinosaurs did not exist because all one can can look in the present is meatless old bones. Sorry. No sale. The Times and the Globe are the bones... and proof enough, even in their meatless state to show that the beast at one time shook the earth. That's a given. And as long as you wish to bandy about , let's all look at it together, shall we? "'''If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic''', though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Nothing in this article is written upon speculation of the future, but only is sound understanding of its 27-year-old past. No one has to jump through your hoop as you decide that something that at one time had coverage does not any more
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP||WP:NTEMP)

Comment: this article on a 27-year-old pilot episode of a (then) notable television series, because  allows the presumption that 27 years ago, pre-internet and pre-wiki, the series, and more importantly the pilot episode of that series, recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. I do not know how the nom overlooked it, but even the New York Times http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E6DF153BF937A35750C0A964948260 specifically praised the pilot episode. And answering the nom's declaration that "''Those who are inclined to !vote ''keep'' should be prepared to provide independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this particular episode on its own, per ''", I politely suggest he pay more attention to  in this instance, because if a presumption can be reasonably be made that sources once existed (pre-internet, pre-wiki), it is not required that we now jump through his hoops. It would be more prudent for the nom to prove that the initial pilot of a notable series following a notable film was itself never reviewed before or upon its release. Thank you and regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NTEMP||WP:N||WP:NTEMP)

Comment: Two of the four used sources are unreliable () by definition (user-edited content), the New York Times article is almost completely about the show and not about the pilot, and the fourth source just verifies the premiere date. Notability () has been challenged since November 2008, still hasn't been established (where is the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"?), and likely can't be established based on the very meager results of Google http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22A+Substantial+Gift%22+%22The+Broken+Promise%22+source%3A%22-newswire%22+source%3A%22-wire%22+source%3A%22-presswire%22+source%3A%22-PR%22+source%3A%22-press%22+source%3A%22-release%22+source%3A%22-wikipedia%22&btnG=Search+Archives News, http://books.google.com/books?hl=de&as_brr=0&q=%22A+Substantial+Gift%22+%22The+Broken+Promise%22&btnG=Nach+B%C3%BCchern+suchen Books and http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=de&lr=&q=%22A+Substantial+Gift%22+%22The+Broken+Promise%22&btnG=Suche&lr= Scholar. No prejudice against recreation if someone can actually prove that a proper article can be written, although I doubt this is even possible. &ndash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: I went trawling for more print sources via LexisNexis and only one single (trivial) mention came up. In keeping with other findings above, I don't see how it can meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)