Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esteemsters

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 all to List of Daria episodes and possibly merge by interested editors. I'll leave a note for this AFD on the respective talk pages, which would also be the first place to bring up sources and a case for recreating specific episode articles. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Esteemsters

Every single episode of this television show does not need its own article. None have established notability or real world relevance outside of show and are mostly fancruft and unnecessary trivia items. The only outside links for each episode are the TV.com and IMDB links, and then multiple links to a van site. The basic info for the episodes is covered by List of Daria episodes. Collectonian (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletions. —Collectonian (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge any sepcific information that would flesh the list out but not overload it, and then redirect to all to List of Daria episodes, adding {{R from merge}} to redirects as well. Useful search terms, in keeping with guidance and prevents recreation. Hiding Talk 16:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletions. -- Hiding Talk 16:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep The question of notablitity has been rendered subjective by those who seek to delete and redirect articles on television episodes, so that they can't be upgraded. Tagging them all for deletion is nothing more than a spiteful effort against those of us who want to save and improve the articles. ----DanTD (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Bunk There is virtually NOTHING subjective about the notability guidelines, and there is no justification at all for you to call the nomination spiteful. If you can honestly say you have read and understood the entirety of the relevant notability guidelines (which are at WP:NOTABLE, WP:FILM and WP:FICTION, unless someone's come up with one specifically for television shows without my noticing it), then and only then do you have any foundation for arguing with this nomination. If you haven't you are unable to debate knowledgeably and are nothing but the howling voice of ignorance. Save and improve the articles on wikia [1] or some similar service; they have no place here. Deltopia

Reply "Bunk," NOTHING! The people who've been crusading to delete articles often change their mind about what makes them notable, and how to prevent them from being deleted, and frequently call for MORE obstacles to writing them. I added something from the real world to one episode of Daria, but it never phased the deletionists. They couldn't care less, because deleting articles is just something for them to do. As for saving and improving the articles on Wikia, that has proven to be a dismal failure. ----DanTD (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(talk) 18:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Daria episodes per Hiding because of (non-established and therefore perceived) non-notability, but leave a note on the talk page to encourage merging as an editorial process. I'm open to recreation of these articles if significant real-world information are added (which can be very hard for cartoon series and would therefore seem unlikely). – sgeureka ^t•c 17:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Redirect all to List of Daria episodes per WP:EPISODE. Otto4711 (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep =CJK= 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by =CJK= (talk • contribs)

Care to provide any sort of rationale? I (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The articles are not notable. Therefore, under WP:EPISODE, the first attempt should be redirecting them, and only as a last resort AfD. Therefore, they should all be redirected to List of Daria episodes, and editors should merge as they see fit. I would make an exception for the pilot however, as that is usually able to be sourced much more easily than others. I (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Soleil, Do you even realize that the pilot episode is the unaired black & white film short Sealed With a Kick? In any case, the articles are notable. Esteemsters is the first episode. Boxing Daria is the last episode. Others set the tone for the rest of the series. And furthermore, before Collectonian tagged them all for deletion, I added a real world note to one of them. It's getting to the point where you can't even mention a TV show without some snob tagging all the articles connected to it for deletion, redirection, or merging. ----DanTD (talk) 06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I usually associate pilot with the first episode. So in this case, the first episode would be kept. And no, the articles are not notable. They need significant coverage on each article by independant sources. These articles do not have it. I (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fansites are independent sources, even if they're biased. Somebody else who supports the deletion of articles mentioned to me that articles on episodes of The Simpsons were saved from deletion by the fans a few years back. If they faced today's standards back then, those articles would be gone too. And what's sad is that I'm fully aware that many of them have to be improved, but deleting and/or redirecting them will take that opportunity away. ----DanTD (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Coverage by fan sites does not make something notable. That wouldn't even make sense. I could set up a fansite for a play I perform at the local park to the squirrels, but that wouldn't make it notable. I (talk) 01:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't hand me that crap. I didn't say anything about notablity this time. I was talking about the independence of a source. Fans of The Simpsons were able to improve the articles because they had an opportunity, which is being taken away now. Fansites should be considered vaild sources. Before you decide whether an episode article is valid or not, you should get your facts straight about which episode is which. ----DanTD (talk)

A fansite, whether or not you believe it is independant, does not grant something notability, which is the criteria for inclusion that these articles fail. And most of the Simpsons episodes have enough real world information (all of the ones in season 8 are GA or Featured) to show that there is a great possibility that there will be more. None of this have it. Show some sources that indicate improvement is possible, otherwise there is no reason to suspect it it. I (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep I honestly think that if a little bit of effort was put in, the episodes of Daria there are currently articles for, (and ones there aren't) could be created and could become what alot perceive as "notable", along with "real world references" included in the article. Alot of the episode titles of Daria are puns on movies and TV show titles, so these titles could be determined and put under appropriate headings and such, along with other gathered information. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for, after all? To provide free encyclopedic information to anyone who wants to read it? We shouldn't look for ways to delete articles, unless they're just terrible, unanimously considered as non-notable and have little to no relevant or simple information in them at all. I think, as I have mentioned, that if effort was put in to improve the quality of these episode articles, they could then be considered worth keeping and notable, and cover information the List of Daria episodes page would be unfit to cover due to general summarisation of what the episode is about, and not in-depth information that such episode pages could actually provide. User:Ss112 07:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment I see every Sopranos episode has an article, most would fail WP:EPISODE also most of the Lost episodes fail WP:EPISODE is anybody going to tag them for AfD? RMHED (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you believe that any Sopranos or Lost episode should be redirected or deleted, please feel free to nominate them. Saying that a crappy article should be kept because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not persuasive. Otto4711 (talk) 13:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that these Daria episode articles shouldn't be deleted, I'm just saying there are much bigger more prominent violators of WP:EPISODE. Strange how nobody goes after them isn't it. RMHED (talk) 13:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Both Lost and The Sopranos have been the subject of critical attention of several orders of magnitude greater than that focused on Daria. It is more likely, although not guaranteed, that episodes of the former two are going to have sourcing that attests to their individual notability. Otto4711 (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So EVERY episode of Lost and The Sopranos is likely to meet WP:EPISODE? Somehow I doubt it, a few of them might, but that's all. RMHED (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if every episode of those series meets WP:EPISODE. Nor do I care if every episode of those series meets WP:EPISODE, because it is not relevant to this dicussion, which is whether or not these episodes meet WP:EPISODE. Otto4711 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Daria episodes unless and until episodes satisfy WP:EPISODE. RMHED (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete all No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not true I've mentioned the real world information here, but I overlooked the fact that there's also some in the episode College Bored, like the fact that there really is a Manatee College. You people are all saboteurs, plain and simple! ----DanTD (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That isn't real world context. There needs to be information about the development and the reception. Making reference to something real does not determine notability. Jay32183 (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That lie has been given by TTN with a Supernatural episode. He deleted it anyway. In any case, you can't tell me that the existance of a real "Manatee College" in College Bored and Daria quoting William Tecumseh Sherman in Boxing Daria isn't "real world context." ----DanTD (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

TTN is 100% correct in assessing episode articles. There needs to be significant coverage beyond plot, that's what real world context means. A show referencing the real world is part of the plot, therefore can't be real world context. We need the real world talking about the episode, not the episode talking about the real world. Jay32183 (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge all per WP:EPISODE guidelines. I see no need for complete removal of material that can be merged to a 'list of' article. I shall further not that a lack of sources and references is NOT a reason for deletion-- it is a reason to add cleanup tags. Jtrainor (talk) 20:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Clean up tags are not magical, if there are no sources out there, no sources will be found. It is not the responsibility of those wishing to delete material to demonstrate a lack of sources, but the responsibility of those wishing to add, restore, or retain material to provide sources, WP:PROVEIT. A lack of sources is the ultimate reason to delete an article because no amount of effort can ever fix the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Merge all per WP:EPISODE. Will ^(talk) 20:02, 23 November 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esteemsters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Esteemsters

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search