Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Episodes of Lost (season 3)

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 of the debate was no consensus. Petros471 19:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes of Lost (season 3)

• Delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball. "[I]ndividual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; 'Tropical Storm Alex (2010)' is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise." — Mike •  15:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment from nominator I notice the article is not just a blank nothing now. Is this solid, verifiable information? If so, I'm willing to withdraw the AfD. That having been said, an IP address removed the AfD notice, and I restored it — I wish people would get it through their heads that removing the notice just hurts them, it does nothing to the actual deletion process. — Mike • 19:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • comment Material's been removed as speculation, so I guess this continues for now. — Mike • 21:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep From the same page: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Lost is well known in the UK and the USA, so I would say it is a notable event, and barring some form of disaster, Season 3 of Lost will take place. NeoThermic 16:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that this portion of the crystal ball policy will be cited by all individuals presenting a 'keep' vote. However, the fact is that this article has almost no content in it, and thus, "only generic information is known" about this "individual item from a predetermined list." Existing referenced and supported information about season three is adequately being cited in Lost, and once more specific, non-speculative information is known about the specific episodes of season three — which, given that the next season doesn't premiere until October, could be a number of months from now — the article can be recreated. To paraphase the policy I reference in my cite: "'Lists of episodes of 'Lost' is encyclopedic; 'Episodes of Lost (season 3)' is not, even though it is virtually certain that a third season of 'Lost' will occur in ABC and will have episodes." — Mike •  16:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    • While the article currently has little info in it, who's to dictate that it isn't a candidate for improvement when the information arrives? A huge percentage of articles start out as a stub, of which you could classifiy the list as a stub. Thus if anything this should be kept and allowed time to improve. Don't forget, although Season 3 doesn't start until October, information will probibally become avalable in the next few months as of to the nature of the first episode, and there might be pre-Season 3 episodes like there was for Season 2. NeoThermic 21:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. An event about which little or no information is currently known should not be included, even if it's "notable and almost certain to take place." Should we have an article on the death of each and every current living celebrity? Without some amazing advanced in medicine, they're all almost certain to take place, and will be seen as notable by plenty of people. The fact that we know nothing about when and how all of these people will die makes such articles unencyclopedic regardless of notability.Geoffrey Spear 16:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia already has List_of_Lost_episodes#Season_3:_2006.E2.80.932007 and there are proposed merges with List of Lost episodes. I don't see the point of maintaining an empty page for months when another such page exists in an established format.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Lost has been renewed for a third season [1]. Right now there is discussion at Talk: List of Lost episodes on how to handle episode synopses. Marking this article for deletion is NOT the way to do it. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 16:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As per WP:NOT. --Crossmr 16:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per NeoThermic's comments above. BrownHornet21 19:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Jtrost. SergeantBolt 21:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No sense in deleting it since it would have to be recreated in the very near future anyway. The recreation would probably trigger a speedy G4 and/or an entirely sterile passage through DRV. Let's cut that short by just keeping the article now and hoping someone (perhaps the nom) adds some valid content pronto. --JJay 21:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per JJay. Manipe 22:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I like List of Lost episodes better, and I really hope they keep the screenshots. Demon Hog 22:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment this discussion isn't whether or not to keep all synopses on one page. For that debate, please see Talk: List of Lost episodes. Jtrost (^T | C | _#) 22:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per (aeropagitica). - Motor (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per JJay. BryanG^(talk) 23:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I would be for keeping, but it appears to be redundant. Ace of Sevens 05:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Content first, article second. There is nothing to put on this page until details of individual episodes are known so it should be deleted until then. Eluchil404 01:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Bingo. — Mike • 01:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because deleting would be temporary and a waste of time to delete now, clean up the template, delete again when article is recreated, template changed, AFD again, clean up the template, ..... repeat until september. There are much better things worth everyone's time. (This is ignoring my position on a list with individual episodes and not one per season, but that's another discussion as noted above.) Cburnett 03:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Cburnett's comment above Ixistant 16:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as there is nothing there, period. Being a waste of time is never a reason to keep an article; I have seen articles get the axe that people obviously put hundreds of hours into. Aguerriero (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for understanding my point. [/sarcasm] Cburnett 23:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Jtrost. The "Not a crystal ball" prohibition notes, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." The third season of Lost is a verifiable and confirmed event, and is certainly of interest to have an article. Deletion would be a pointless venture in time-wasting. As stated at WP:AFD, "Before nominating a recently-created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape."--Leflyman^Talk 17:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, placeholder, no content. When there are episodes of Season 3 of Lost, we can have an article listing them. Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep The article appears as a placeholder, but would have been created soon anyway so it's better to just keep it now really rather than just deleting it and then recreating it. Comments by NeoThermic also correct. --Film11 18:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notice that the example used in support of deletion is 'Tropical Storm Alex (2010)', I find this to be a straw man arguement. There is only a weak analogy between a Tropical Storm in 2010 and a season of Lost that is (1) a few months away and (2) which information may become public before then (e.g. a list of episode names). Lastly, I visited the 3rd season episode list to find out what character backgrounds would be explored in the 3rd season, and so seeing that there is little info about the episodes has been informative to my purposes. Lastly, and here is my analogy, many movies have entries long before their release and sometimes before they begin production (e.g. Star Trek 11). (Atfyfe 05:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC))
• Keep per above. --InShaneee 20:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete waste of a databse entry. Thsi page should really only be active when the series is being broadcast or a list of episode names is released via official sources. --Ood 21:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Hah! You think that something else can take place of this article in the database? You can't replace "Episodes of Lost (season 3)" with anything other than "Episodes of Lost (season 3)". Cburnett 12:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Whether this article will exist or not is not in question. Whether this article will exist now is in question. As it stands, for months, there will be no verifiable information on this article separating it from any other generic information that we would know about a season of episodes. — Mike • 13:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-Season 3 was not taken from a list. It has been mentioned by Damon Lindelof in several interviews, and is thus verifiable information. I will provide a citation if necessary. --Kahlfin 22:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not season three itself that's in question, it's the episodes within it. All we know about season three is that there will be one — just like all we know is that there will be a Tropical Storm in 2010. Once we know verifiable info about it, fine, recreate it. But until then, it's all just speculation and crystal ball. — Mike • 23:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see anything that's speculation or crystal ball at all. It's been confirmed that the first episode will air on October 4th. We could even create an entry for this episode if we wanted, but since we don't know anything about it, it would just look messy. We also know that the episodes will air in two blocks, a six episode block and a seventeen episode block, according to the official podcast. Also according to the official podcast, there will be a "mini-cliffhanger" at the end of the six episode block. This is all verifiable information with citable sources. None of it is speculation, and it all concerns the episodes within Season 3. --Kahlfin 03:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: It is unnecessary for a nominator to repeatedly respond to contrary opinions expressed during an AfD discussion; it makes the nom appear to be argumentative, rather than letting editors make up their own minds as to whether an article is appropriate or not for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion: "Please do not "spam" the discussion with the same comment multiple times. Make your case clearly and let other users decide for themselves."--Leflyman^Talk 15:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete The only content in this article will be speculation and will only exaggerate whatever little info the producers and writers will give out. Just leave it until the event happens, and concentrate on improving the rest of the 'pedia where it needs improving. The information found in the article is useless until October. Moitio ^(talk) 16:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think it is unfair of you to keep repeating that this article is all "speculation" when the author of the article has repeatedly defended the information of the entry. You may complain that it is not enough info to justify an article on a future event, but just because something is in the future does not make all information about it speculation. Secondly, an editor with their own interests and time ought to concentrate on whatever they want. If the article violates wikipedia policy (which it argueably does) then it ought to be deleted, but if you think it is just a person's waste of time then that is no arguement against it. People edit wikipedia not for money, but because of a passion they hold for some specific set of topics; to belittle what topic a person decides to edit is to lose sight of how wikipedia itself functions. All that being said, your last point of the info being useless until October is a valid objection to make but ultimately one I think is incorrect (as I argue in my vote to keep, above). (Atfyfe 05:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC))

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.