Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will You Tolerate This?

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 keep. - Bobet 10:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Will You Tolerate This?

I don't think the new Robin Hood series from the BBC is anywhere near established enough yet to merit articles for its individual episodes. And I say that as someone who has been primarily responsible for building up Wikipedia's page on the show over the past few months. Give it time — months, maybe even years — and if it sufficiently establishes itself in popular culture then perhaps it will merit articles for each episode. But not yet, I think. Angmering 19:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine to write a plot summary for those interested. Wiki-newbie 19:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep The precedent for TV episode articles is generally to keep them. The reason this is a weak keep is that the current article is a sub-sub-stub and could use more information, such as at least a plot outline. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - needs cleaning up, but fine for now. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it does need some work doing though. IanC 20:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Should we delete Doctor Who episodes as well???--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 17:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't mind articles about episodes, either. However, to be an article, this needs to establish notability in and of itself. As a simple plot summary, it doesn't. Dekimasu 09:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Needs a little work, like a Trivia section and possibly a screenshot later on, but should be kept as pretty much every other major drama series has individual episode pages.--Codenamecuckoo 10:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wy don't we have a better naming convention for all this tv cruft with the series in parentheses or some such after the episode title? Eusebeus 11:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Many other TV shows have episode pages, and the first one for Robin Hood (Will you tolerate this?) seems detailed enough to be encyclopedic. Goldenboy|talk|contribs 12:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Many other TV shows that were on primetime BBC One, like Doctor Who etc. had their own episode pages, and it is a very popular television programme, with millions of viewers. The article has also grown now, and has a lot more detail, including a photo and plot information. So, I think we should keep this article. David 15:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --pdb781
• Keep It's a detailed article now. Should be kept as long as similar pages are created for future episodes. --MorneHeru 21:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It will be necessary in the future anyway, so why delete it only to have it reinstated? --Mark J 20:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

keep it i guess

• Keep - There's a good start and room for improvement. Add some non-plot-related material to flesh out the breadth, critical and ratings response, etc. and there should be a decent article of appropriate length. Radagast 03:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - The article is developed, and it would be unfair to remove this but not other articles for individual episodes of popular television series'. I agree with Eusebeus that a better naming convention for TV shows would be preferable. Most, if not all individual episode entries for Stargate SG-1 follow a convention, with the name of the series in parentheses appearing after the name of the episode. --Sparked1985 02:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per Andrew Will ^{(Glaciers melting in the dead of night)} 11:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per MorneHeru: this is now a well-developed article. As to a naming convention, is this always necessary? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 20:54, 13 October 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.