Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Has a Shadow

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 keep. Whether or not we all agree with their inclusion, there are a significant number of TV-episode articles on Wikipedia. The consensus of the community, thus far, has been to include Family Guy related articles. alphaChimp laudare 00:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death Has a Shadow

Cruft. Is entirely original research (no refrences or links). The opening paragraph is mostly made up of incomplete sentences. Among other things, which I will add as the AFD goes along. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Fails WP:NOR, WP:CITE. It has informal statements; uses "the guys" instead of names or a better pronoun for example. And thats about all I can think of. Unfortunately, most episode summaries are worse, so depending on how this goes, I might have to list the uncited articles for AFD. (No this is not a prank, no I don't hate Family Guy, no i'm not crazy).-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 01:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep against my actual wishes: I don't think there should be episode articles at all, for any TV series. However, that battle was lost a long time ago. Since we let the bleaters in, we can't kick this one out for being better than the usual run. The show has a huge viewership and additional significance. Geogre 04:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I meant to put this on AfD as a test of sorts: if this article (which breaks 2 of the Big Three policies (others even break NPOV)) can be deleted for not following policy, then so can many other policy-breaking, terrible cruft articles. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 07:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Respectfully, you'd be better off launching a new discussion as an aside on the deletion policy's talk page or at the Pump. The problem is that doing a query this way wouldn't lead to a real ruling anyway, and certainly not consensus. Folks would begin complaining pretty loudly if there were serial nominations without consensus. Geogre 14:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep, Geogre has it right on ths one. Articles for episodes of notable TV shows are allowed. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • You know, deletion of articles isnt entirely based on notability. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 07:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Don't get me wrong, I loathe Family Guy, almost as much as The Simpsons. But the article must stay according to policy. Black-Velvet 07:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, where is the policy saying this must stay? -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Geogre. I don't see anything about this article that makes it worse than the hundreds (thousands?) of TV-episode articles we already have. I suggest if Chris has a particular problem with it, he clean it up :-) fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep We delete articles that can't be cleaned up, not ones that have problems. Precendent says episodes of popular TV shows get their own pages. Ace of Sevens 14:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ace of Sevens. --Tuspm(C | @) 15:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Family Guy episodes have already been AfD'd twice, and kept both times. This article, in particular, is certainly not a great article, but it's incredibly hard to have references and citations for a synopsis of an episode of a television show. I doubt there are many reliable sources that deal with individual TV episodes. The article is certainly incredibly notable (the premiere episode of one of the most well-known TV shows in the world), and whatever isn't up to par can be easily cleaned up. -- Kicking222 17:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, if there aren't enough reliable sources for televison articles, then they are not verifiable... Verifiability is policy. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Checking the archives, the same nominator put Family Guy episodes up for AfD less than a month ago- see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter's_Got_Woods. Not to start an argument, but why, Chris, is this necesary? -- Kicking222 17:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh yeah... my memorey slips sometimes. I didn't think that debate worked out becuase I had someone keep telling me that the episode itself is a reliable source. I said that was original research, becuase you can't look at a tree and write an article on it... thats OR for sure. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 19:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Actually, that isn't original research. See WP:OR. It says "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." So using primary sources is fine. What you can't do is original analysis. SO you can source a plot summary to the episode itself. You just can't say, for instance, that an episode is a fan favorite without a source. Ace of Sevens 00:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Really? So I can write an article on the tree outside my window just by looking at it? 66.82.9.63 05:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC) This post was made by -- Chris is me (user/review/talk) when he was unable to log in
  • Strong Keep Why was this nominated? It's a TV show synopsis, are we starting a campaign to get ride of a monstrous amount of content from Wikipedia now related to television? We're building an encyclopedia without physical limits, this is fine, just needs copyediting and work. Bad deletion nom... rootology 18:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep episodes of TV shows. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - That tree-example of Chris got me thinking. He's right. Link TV Tome IMDb and the official site at least but only if they serve as evidence to things stated in article, and because I doubt they will Trivia and References must go. COME ON people!! That Hitler - Holocaust thing is terrible and ultimately uncited (and "uncitable"). Goofs can stay (assuming by good faith that they could be true). But than what remains? Lajbi Holla @ meWho's the boss? 12:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per George above. Adelord 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as per Kicking222 above. Spongesquid 01:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Howdy. I'll try to be brief, but such a comment usually means the opposite so...yeah. Ahem. Sourcing is good; We all know that. However, ultimately, the sources are also just as important. You cannot, for example, source a whole article with a fansite—unless the article is about the fansite, of course—and yes, the tree article would be original research unless you can prove your findings. You cannot just say "I've got wood". We'll need pictures and location varification. I digress. Sources, largely, are a form of media. Rarely Multi, but then again, look at Shin MegaMan DS. Okay. Television is a source, as stated above. It's not infallible, but we're not talking about Natural male enhancement or something. We're talking about a popular televised program. If we polled all the Family Guy fans on Wikipedia, they'd vouched for the factual accuracy of this article. That should say something. Futhermore, look at comics and comic books. Now, honestly, aside from the medium itself, what source could be used which details the exploits of such featured article topics as Superman and Batman? Hmmm? Thought so. Same thing here. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 07:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Geogre and existing precedent. It would be nice if these episode articles were better referenced. Yamaguchi先生 09:36, 1 August 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.