Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blair Waldorf Must Pie!

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Redirect to List of Gossip Girl episodes. Material not merged, as plot summary already exists. Those wishing to incorporate information from the history are welcome to do so, but please note source per WP:MERGE.. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blair Waldorf Must Pie!

Blair Waldorf Must Pie! (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

TV episode with no claim to notability given. Does not deserve its own article per WP:EPISODE. Nehwyn (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Does Not Agree. Every other episode has its own article. Unless you want to do something about those articles, this one stays as well for consistency. Butterfly0fdoom 11:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, the old argument "if we keep that, we have to keep this". I'm afraid inclusion is not a reason for notability, and each article is assessed on its own merits. If you think WP:EPISODE does not apply to this particular article, can you provide any reason why? --Nehwyn 13:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Well then you better start assessing other episode pages, because there's a lot of episode pages that lack such notability. Butterfly0fdoom 02:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I've started already, but please keep in mind this debate is about this particular episode. --Nehwyn 08:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello there. Please keep in mind this is a debate, not a vote. If you have an opinion to voice, you need to justify it. Can you elaborate on why you think it is obvious that WP:EPISODE should not apply to this unreferenced article? --Nehwyn (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Quote from WP:EPISODE. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Article has a large recap from TV-guide - I would define that as significant coverage in a reliable source.--Peter Andersen (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
So the article is a plot summary, and its claim to notability is an external link to... another plot summary? Sources are used to establish a claim to notability. A link to an external recap does establish that this episode has a plot, and that's all good an well, but what claim to notability does it have? Has it won any award, or raised attention over a contentious issue? --Nehwyn (talk) 12:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
From WP:NOTE: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This topic has received significant coverage in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. And is therefore notable. --Peter Andersen (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
For which claim? Award? Contentious content? Cost? (à la Lost pilot) Just having a plot is not a claim to notability; in fact, the article being just a plot summary is in direct violation of WP:NOT. And please note - multiple reliable sources are required, that's the "primary notability criterion". --Nehwyn (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


  • As I said over on the other AfD (sigh...) I'd prefer to keep, as I have a very hard time believing that these episodes are somehow less notable than most of the episodes of all these other shows. That said, rather than delete entirely, I would merge and redirect content back into the list of Gossip Girl episodes page, which already exists -- people are going to be looking for these pages as it's a current show. -- phoebe/(talk) 06:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The argument "we kept those, we gotta keep this" is not acceptable in this type of debate. However, I would be amenable to a merge and redirect solution in List of Gossip Girl episodes. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)]
It is a common misperception that the argument you cite -- that what else exists should not affect AfD debates -- is a policy or guideline. It is, in fact, neither of those things, and I think it is totally reasonable to look at precedent when discussing notability. Notability is inherently a contextual matter, and for to pull a handful of episodes out of a particular series to delete is confusing. Why are these specially less notable than the others? -- phoebe/(talk) 07:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no misperception - the argument in question is not a policy, simply a fallacy in deletion debates. An individual deletion debate ask the question: why is this particular article (in this case, episode) notable enough to get its own page? Why does it stick out from the others? Because if it doesn't, it goes in the "List of...", that being what WP:EPISODE is for (and that is a guideline). Each episode is assessed separatedly; inclusion is not a reason for notability. --Nehwyn (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, see, I'd phrase it slightly differently; an AfD to my mind judges whether a particular article should be in Wikipedia or not, which depends on a whole host of factors, notability being one factor and our scope of coverage being another, equally important guideline. At least, that's the opinion I've come to over the years... :) at any rate, I still don't think they're hurting anyone; the usual sources probably apply (TV magazines and whatnot); and a good compromise solution would be to redirect them back to the list of episodes, which should be beefed up. If the show stays popular, they'll almost certainly turn back into articles at some point. -- phoebe/(talk) 08:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's scope of coverage is not infinite; it has a limit, and that limit is what we call "notability". This is covered in WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which specifically has a section about articles of the kind we're discussing here, i.e. a plot summary. --Nehwyn (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as article fails to establish notability. WP:OTHERSTUFF argument above is completely unconvincing to me, and TV_Guide is not an appropriate source for notability. Epthorn (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2007 (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.